I would say look at http://logging.apache.org/log4j/2.x/ <http://logging.apache.org/log4j/2.x/> and that paragraph entitled “API Separation”. Then look at http://logging.apache.org/log4j/2.x/manual/api.html <http://logging.apache.org/log4j/2.x/manual/api.html>. The first paragraph makes it clear what our intent is. It should be telling that nowhere on that page is the LoggerContext mentioned. It isn’t until you get to the Configuration section that LoggerContext APIs are discussed.
So the intent of the design is that code that is performing logging sticks to the Log4j API - providing it with a guarantee of backward compatibility. In a lot of cases no custom configuration is needed and so the whole application will be compatible no matter what we change internally. That doesn’t mean that getLogger() cannot be called - but IMO applications should never be calling it for “normal" logging operations. All of that said, I wouldn’t veto a code commit to do what you want. It is just not something I’d consider as a worst practice if I found it in someone’s code for “normal” logging and I would strongly recommend they change it. Ralph > On Aug 21, 2017, at 6:45 PM, Gary Gregory <garydgreg...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Hi Ralph, > > Would you say that is your opinion or the intent of the design? And if the > latter, should we adjust the Javadoc accordingly. > > Gary > > On Mon, Aug 21, 2017 at 7:31 PM, Ralph Goers <ralph.go...@dslextreme.com> > wrote: > >> I am against encouraging users to directly acquire a Logger. >> >> Ralph >> >> >>> On Aug 21, 2017, at 5:24 PM, Gary Gregory <garydgreg...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >>> >>> On Mon, Aug 21, 2017 at 6:01 PM, Ralph Goers <ralph.go...@dslextreme.com >>> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> It is actually funny that you say that. The API we provide for >> performing >>>> logging is log4j-api, not log4j-core. We provide access in log4j-core >> for >>>> users to customize how they configure their logging - not perform it. >>>> >>> >>> I'm all about humoring the ML :-) >>> >>> Any further thoughts on adding these APIs? For or against? >>> >>> Gary >>> >>>> >>>> Ralph >>>> >>>>> On Aug 21, 2017, at 3:42 PM, Gary Gregory <garydgreg...@gmail.com> >>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Hi, >>>>> >>>>> When someone calls any of the init methods like >>>>> org.apache.logging.log4j.core.config.Configurator.initialize(String, >>>>> ClassLoader, String), you get a Core LoggerContext, and that's what >>>> you've >>>>> got to work with... Why is that a bad idea? That's the API we provide. >>>>> >>>>> Gary >>>>> >>>>> On Mon, Aug 21, 2017 at 4:30 PM, Ralph Goers < >> ralph.go...@dslextreme.com >>>>> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> So you are saying that your application is getting Loggers by doing >>>>>> LoggerContext.getLogger()? I guess I don’t really understand why that >>>> is a >>>>>> good idea. Are you saying you have your own custom LoggerContext and >>>> that >>>>>> you want to modify Log4j’s LoggerContext simply so you can modify >> yours? >>>>>> >>>>>> Ralph >>>>>> >>>>>>> On Aug 21, 2017, at 3:01 PM, Gary Gregory <garydgreg...@gmail.com> >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> My use case is that deep in the guts and call stack of my >> server/app, I >>>>>>> have a specific Core LoggerContext that I should/must use. Log4j and >>>>>> other >>>>>>> components must co-exist in a long-lived server that have modules >> that >>>>>> are >>>>>>> constantly re-initialized/re-configured during development and >> testing >>>>>>> phases. During acceptance and production, the are fewer >>>> reconfigurations, >>>>>>> but they do happen. The bottom line is that most logging code dishes >>>> out >>>>>>> Loggers out of specific LoggerContext instances and not out of the >>>>>>> LogManager classes (only in a few rare places.) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Gary >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Mon, Aug 21, 2017 at 3:47 PM, Ralph Goers < >>>> ralph.go...@dslextreme.com >>>>>>> >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Did you ask this question last week? Why is it needed? Why can’t >> this >>>>>> be >>>>>>>> handled in LogManager? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Ralph >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Aug 21, 2017, at 2:10 PM, Gary Gregory <garydgreg...@gmail.com> >>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Hi All: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I have a need for the shortcut method >>>>>>>>> org.apache.logging.log4j.core.LoggerContext getLogger(Class) which >>>>>> would >>>>>>>>> use getCannonicalName(). >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Any objection to adding that? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Gary >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >> >> >>
