You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@logging.apache.org by Mikael Ståldal <mi...@apache.org> on 2017/10/05 16:53:19 UTC
Binary compatibility for managers in log4j-core
We try to keep binary compatibility for appenders and layouts in
log4j-core. Does that apply to the managers used by appenders as well?
Re: Binary compatibility for managers in log4j-core
Posted by Ralph Goers <ra...@dslextreme.com>.
Since they are not something end users would normally not be accessing via an API, I think my answer would be No, it is not essential that binary compatibility be maintained with managers.
Ralph
> On Oct 5, 2017, at 9:53 AM, Mikael Ståldal <mi...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> We try to keep binary compatibility for appenders and layouts in log4j-core. Does that apply to the managers used by appenders as well?
>
Re: Binary compatibility for managers in log4j-core
Posted by Gary Gregory <ga...@gmail.com>.
"Within reason" should be the operative term here... IOW, let's not
handcuff ourselves unless necessary.
Gary
On Thu, Oct 5, 2017 at 11:02 AM, Matt Sicker <bo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Since appenders are usually final classes, I think the only compatibility
> there is calling compatibility. For managers, users can extend the classes,
> so implementation compatibility would make sense.
>
> On 5 October 2017 at 11:53, Mikael Ståldal <mi...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> > We try to keep binary compatibility for appenders and layouts in
> > log4j-core. Does that apply to the managers used by appenders as well?
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Matt Sicker <bo...@gmail.com>
>
Re: Binary compatibility for managers in log4j-core
Posted by Gary Gregory <ga...@gmail.com>.
How about switching to a Builder like we have been doing for Appenders?
Gary
On Thu, Oct 5, 2017 at 11:38 AM, Mikael Ståldal <mi...@apache.org> wrote:
> The specific case is KafkaManager constructor. Can we just add a new
> parameter, or should we overload?
>
>
> On 2017-10-05 19:02, Matt Sicker wrote:
>
>> Since appenders are usually final classes, I think the only compatibility
>> there is calling compatibility. For managers, users can extend the
>> classes,
>> so implementation compatibility would make sense.
>>
>> On 5 October 2017 at 11:53, Mikael Ståldal <mi...@apache.org> wrote:
>>
>> We try to keep binary compatibility for appenders and layouts in
>>> log4j-core. Does that apply to the managers used by appenders as well?
>>>
>>
Re: Binary compatibility for managers in log4j-core
Posted by Mikael Ståldal <mi...@apache.org>.
The specific case is KafkaManager constructor. Can we just add a new
parameter, or should we overload?
On 2017-10-05 19:02, Matt Sicker wrote:
> Since appenders are usually final classes, I think the only compatibility
> there is calling compatibility. For managers, users can extend the classes,
> so implementation compatibility would make sense.
>
> On 5 October 2017 at 11:53, Mikael Ståldal <mi...@apache.org> wrote:
>
>> We try to keep binary compatibility for appenders and layouts in
>> log4j-core. Does that apply to the managers used by appenders as well?
Re: Binary compatibility for managers in log4j-core
Posted by Matt Sicker <bo...@gmail.com>.
Since appenders are usually final classes, I think the only compatibility
there is calling compatibility. For managers, users can extend the classes,
so implementation compatibility would make sense.
On 5 October 2017 at 11:53, Mikael Ståldal <mi...@apache.org> wrote:
> We try to keep binary compatibility for appenders and layouts in
> log4j-core. Does that apply to the managers used by appenders as well?
>
--
Matt Sicker <bo...@gmail.com>