[logback-dev] RFC 5424 and Structured Data support.

[Ralph Goers]

On Dec 4, 2009, at 2:12 PM, Ceki Gülcü wrote:

> Hi Ralph,
> 
> I've looked at the changed you made in relation to RFC 5424. It's
> quite a significant architectural change. The RFC 5424 route is in the
> opposite direction of logback where one creates a new module for each
> new event type.

I'm confused. What is this "module" that one creates? I assume you mean an event type is a Marker? If not, what embodies it?

> This offers the benefit of type safety but has
> significant overhead from a packaging pov, whereas the 5424 route has
> little packaging overhead but omits type safety.

Type safety of what? Everything is a String. With the latest changes Joern suggested that is enforced.

> 
> The RFC 5424 approach is not to be discarded. However, I don't think
> it's a route we should take at this *immediate* juncture. I propose to
> put it aside for the time being and come back to it, possibly with a
> vengeance, some time later.
> 

Obviously I have no control over what gets adopted into SLF4J/Logback but I find this rather disappointing as it means I will either have to hack something messy on top of Logback or finally get off my butt and work on Log4j 2.0 which will require far more time than I want to spend. Structured data support (RFC 5424) is an absolute requirement for my project. 

I haven't looked at Joern's version yet but from what he has described it sounds promising. I hope I can find some time tonight.

Ralph