Re: [log4perl-devel] Patch for suggested new behaviour

[Kevin G. <ke...@go...>]

Ahh, I feel clarity approaching.   I think I've got the best of our
approaches coming on.  Collaboration rocks.

 - input_filter as a property of an appender in the config, normally is
not defined, but can be defined and false or set to...what? a coderef? 
Would need to implement set_input_filter method in Appender.pm.

 - I was suffering confusion hacking the Layouts to return arrayrefs
untouched, silly.  The log4j behavior is to have a sql statement like
this
	insert into LogTable (Thread, Class, Message) values ("%t", "%c", "%m")
passed to PatternLayout.  We still support that, log4j configs will run
just fine as-is.  My new behavior with the bind values doesn't need
PatternLayout at that level, it needs a NoopLayout to just pass the
array back, that's not log4j but that's ok, it's consistently not log4j.

 - thanks for noticing the join in the noop coderef

 - I'm still not sure how this will interact with jcromie are talking
about, but it's more than I can keep in my head at one time.

Check out the attached patch and let me know what you think!



Mike Schilli wrote:
> 
> ke...@go... wrote:
> 
> > Are you guaranteeing that no Log::Dispatch::* class will ever have a
> > subroutine called "input_filter"?
> 
> Well, admittedly, that's somewhat sloppy right now. Although, long term
> we need a more generalized appender interface anyway -- but we can't
> finalize that right now, because we don't know yet which crazy ideas
> we're gonna come up with in the future ;).
> 
> > And why call a method *all* the time when *most* of the time we're
> > just doing a join?
> 
> Good point. It's clearly unnecessary to call input_filter() every time.
> That could be changed to cache the default behaviour (join) and do it in
> Log::Log4perl::Appender.
> 
> > How about something like this instead.  Munging the message should be
> > a function of the Layout class, shouldn't it?
> 
> Hmm, really? Isn't it up to the appender to decide which format it
> likes/needs? Shouldn't it be a property of the appender?
> 
> > If need be, I might have time tonight to generate a patch for
> > discussion purposes.
> 
> Good idea -- think that would help clear things up.
> 
> --
> -- Mike
> 
> Mike Schilli
> log...@pe...

--
Happy Trails. . .

Kevin M. Goess
(and Anne and Frank)
904 Carmel Ave.
Albany, CA  94706
(510)525-5217