logging-log4j-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Danko Mannhaupt" <dankol...@mannhaupt.com>
Subject Re: PreparedStatementAppender vs. JDBCAppenderPlus
Date Tue, 27 Apr 2004 13:35:26 GMT
I agree, that PreparedStatementAppender is simpler and could be used as a
base for the future DBAppender. It should be possible to extend it to
include additional features, such as MDC support.

I think that most users create their own custom logging table with custom
columns and types. It is sometimes even required to write custom log
objects, not just Strings, to the database. Consequently, IMHO the appender
should offer flexibility and extensibility, at least to provide custom
column names.


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Ceki Gülcü" <ceki@qos.ch>
To: "Log4J Developers List" <log4j-dev@logging.apache.org>
Sent: Tuesday, April 27, 2004 11:29 AM
Subject: RE: PreparedStatementAppender vs. JDBCAppenderPlus
> Complex things are fine as long as there is a justifying use case.
> for a package with the size of log4j, unnecessary complexity can be our
> worst enemy.
> At 11:30 PM 4/26/2004, Scott Deboy wrote:
> >Here are my comments:
> >
> >1 - We should leave in support for configurable column names.  There are
> >folks out there already writing logging events to tables - and likely
> >using this table or tables as a common logging infrastructure in their
> >enterprise across systems.  Allowing JDBCAppender to write events to
> >existing tables is a valid  use case.  If the goal is to provide a simple
> >configuration, maybe we could add a 'useDefaultColumnNames' param and
> >support those columns in the appender by default.
> I think that the table where DBAppender writes to should be sharable
> languages. It makes so much easier to support a simple and common base. If
> someone insists on naming their event columns according to "enterprise"
> standards, then they can continue to do so. It is none of our business.
> goal of DBAppender is to offer a robust, simple and easy to use platform
> for placing logging events. The vast majority of users do not even care
> the columns are named as long as they can easily write to them and read
> from them using a receiver.
> >2 - Is there a reason we couldn't include both and get feedback from
> >during the alpha phase as to which they prefer, or maybe Danko and Ray
> >could work together to combine the best parts of both appenders into one?
> I totally agree that we should discuss and debate use cases for variable
> columns.
> >I think it's great that we have two options and I'd like to get some
> >world' feedback on their respective benefits before we decide to nix one
> >or the other.
> I totally agree. We have the exceptional luxury of choosing between two
> good solutions.
> <snip>

To unsubscribe, e-mail: log4j-dev-unsubscribe@logging.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: log4j-dev-help@logging.apache.org

View raw message