It sounds reasonable. Agree to improve pax-logging in that way.
Regards
JB
On 17/01/2019 20:29, Robert Varga wrote:
> On 17/01/2019 19:46, Grzegorz Grzybek wrote:
>> I understand. I don't remember (wasn't there when pax-logging was founded),
>> but it's about those exotic appenders you can use.
>> But in OSGi, it'd be probably better to rewrite/adjust the
>> discover/extensibility part in pax-logging-log4j2, to use our beloved TCCL
>> instead or kind of service discovery / locator.
>
> Yes, and also it would be nice to have a basic slim core jar and have
> rest optionally delivered -- I bet most deployments would use much less
> than 1.8MiB this is currently costing...
>
> Regards,
> Robert
>
--
Jean-Baptiste Onofré
jbonofre@apache.org
http://blog.nanthrax.net
Talend - http://www.talend.com
|