[logback-dev] While you are working on FileAppenders... was: Question about a custom binary file appender.

[Maarten Bosteels]

Hi Ceki and Joern,

Remember the Encoder interface we discussed in the past ?
To make the aspect of encoding a LoggingEvent pluggable, and thus the
Appender implementation more reusable.

I have small prototype here :

http://tinyurl.com/encoder-interface
http://tinyurl.com/encoder-example

regards,
Maarten

On Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 5:51 PM, Ceki Gulcu <ceki at qos.ch> wrote:

>
> Hi Joern,
>
> Plese enter a bug report with as much information as you can about the
> code you'd like to see changed.  In principle, very little code is
> involved in actually writing to the file so the task would seem rather
> easy. However, WriterAppender on which FileAppender and
> RollingFileAppender are built upon uses a Writer to write whatever it
> is that needs to be written. Unfortunately, a Writer knows how to
> writes String or chars, but not bytes.
>
> Nevertheless, I think it's feasible with some work...
>
> Joern Huxhorn wrote:
>
>> Hi Ceki.
>>
>> I've seen that you are working on the FileAppenders again. Have you seen
>> this mail I wrote? What do you think about it?
>>
>> Joern.
>>
>> Begin forwarded message:
>>
>>  *From: *Joern Huxhorn <jhuxhorn at googlemail.com <mailto:
>>> jhuxhorn at googlemail.com>>
>>> *Date: *23. April 2009 18:38:38 MESZ
>>> *To: *logback developers list <logback-dev at qos.ch <mailto:
>>> logback-dev at qos.ch>>
>>> *Subject: **Question about a custom binary file appender.*
>>>
>>> Hi Ceki.
>>>
>>> I'd like to implement a file appender that writes the binary Lilith
>>> format, i.e. gzipped protobuf-serialized events, instead of Strings.
>>> I'd also like to have the same functionality that's supported by
>>> RollingFileAppender right now.
>>>
>>> Unfortunately, there seems to be no way to simply write bytes instead of
>>> a String. How would you go from here?
>>> Reimplementing everything from the start seems to be a pretty bad idea.
>>>
>>> What do you think about enhancing the RFA so it's using byte[] instead
>>> of Strings? The current behavior could be implemented using those
>>> methods + string.getBytes("UTF-8") or CharsetEncoder...
>>>
>>> Any idea, suggestions?
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Joern.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> logback-dev mailing list
>> logback-dev at qos.ch
>> http://qos.ch/mailman/listinfo/logback-dev
>>
>
> --
> Ceki Gülcü
> Logback: The reliable, generic, fast and flexible logging framework for
> Java.
> http://logback.qos.ch
> _______________________________________________
> logback-dev mailing list
> logback-dev at qos.ch
> http://qos.ch/mailman/listinfo/logback-dev
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://qos.ch/pipermail/logback-dev/attachments/20090801/135d19d2/attachment-0001.htm>