You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to log4j-dev@logging.apache.org by Robert Bushman <bo...@traxel.com> on 2002/01/09 15:52:57 UTC
Logging Event Serialization
Hi,
I've been using the version independant serialization for about
a month in Lumbermill, and it's working very nicely. What
else would you like to me to do with it before you can
incorporate it in the next build?
Modified LoggingEvent:
http://traxel.com/java/log4j/LoggingEvent.java
Unit Test and Unit Test Proxy:
http://traxel.com/java/log4j/
Lumbermill:
http://traxel.com/lumbermill/
----------------------------------------------------------------
"I need some water" "How much?" "Enough to put a fire out"
"Where do you want it?" "On the flames"
----------------------------------------------------------------
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
Re: Logging Event Serialization
Posted by Robert Bushman <bo...@traxel.com>.
Makes perfect sense, a very clean solution.
My only hesitation would be about the raw
write of the levelInt, but think that the
benefit of the simpler solution outweighs
the risk of one direct stream access.
Good Idea!
Bob
On Thu, 10 Jan 2002, Ceki Gulcu wrote:
>
> Hi Robert,
>
> Having some time studying the problem, I think it is
> possible to retain backward compatibility for
> serialisation without writing a single line of code. I
> think it suffices to rename the logger field back to
> category. The other fields are either the same or were
> added in log4j 1.2 which according to Sun's
> documenation is backard compatible. I did not actually
> test this but I trust the documentation:
>
> http://java.sun.com/products/jdk/1.2/docs/guide/serialization/spec/version.doc.html
>
> and
>
> http://java.sun.com/products/jdk/1.2/docs/guide/serialization/spec/version.doc5.html#6519
>
> This does not mean that your code is not useful in a
> more general setting. I think it is pretty brilliant
> myself.
>
> However, if you compare the complexity of renaming a
> single field and your code, there is no competition. I
> am not saying your code is complicated. It is just not
> utterly completely absolutely trivial.
>
> Does it make sense? Any comments? Regards, Ceki
>
> ps: Happy new year by the way.
>
> --- Robert Bushman <bo...@traxel.com> wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > I've been using the version independant
> > serialization for about
> > a month in Lumbermill, and it's working very nicely.
> > What
> > else would you like to me to do with it before you
> > can
> > incorporate it in the next build?
> >
> > Modified LoggingEvent:
> > http://traxel.com/java/log4j/LoggingEvent.java
> >
> > Unit Test and Unit Test Proxy:
> > http://traxel.com/java/log4j/
> >
> > Lumbermill:
> > http://traxel.com/lumbermill/
> >
> >
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> > "I need some water" "How much?" "Enough to put a
> > fire out"
> > "Where do you want it?" "On the flames"
> >
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> > <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
> > For additional commands, e-mail:
> > <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
> >
>
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Send FREE video emails in Yahoo! Mail!
> http://promo.yahoo.com/videomail/
>
> --
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
> For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
>
>
----------------------------------------------------------------
"I need some water" "How much?" "Enough to put a fire out"
"Where do you want it?" "On the flames"
----------------------------------------------------------------
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
Re: Logging Event Serialization
Posted by Ceki Gulcu <ce...@yahoo.com>.
Hi Robert,
Having some time studying the problem, I think it is
possible to retain backward compatibility for
serialisation without writing a single line of code. I
think it suffices to rename the logger field back to
category. The other fields are either the same or were
added in log4j 1.2 which according to Sun's
documenation is backard compatible. I did not actually
test this but I trust the documentation:
http://java.sun.com/products/jdk/1.2/docs/guide/serialization/spec/version.doc.html
and
http://java.sun.com/products/jdk/1.2/docs/guide/serialization/spec/version.doc5.html#6519
This does not mean that your code is not useful in a
more general setting. I think it is pretty brilliant
myself.
However, if you compare the complexity of renaming a
single field and your code, there is no competition. I
am not saying your code is complicated. It is just not
utterly completely absolutely trivial.
Does it make sense? Any comments? Regards, Ceki
ps: Happy new year by the way.
--- Robert Bushman <bo...@traxel.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I've been using the version independant
> serialization for about
> a month in Lumbermill, and it's working very nicely.
> What
> else would you like to me to do with it before you
> can
> incorporate it in the next build?
>
> Modified LoggingEvent:
> http://traxel.com/java/log4j/LoggingEvent.java
>
> Unit Test and Unit Test Proxy:
> http://traxel.com/java/log4j/
>
> Lumbermill:
> http://traxel.com/lumbermill/
>
>
----------------------------------------------------------------
> "I need some water" "How much?" "Enough to put a
> fire out"
> "Where do you want it?" "On the flames"
>
----------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
> --
> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
> For additional commands, e-mail:
> <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
>
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Send FREE video emails in Yahoo! Mail!
http://promo.yahoo.com/videomail/
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>