Core isn’t a multi-module project so I don’t know how you can have a new module in it. That said, I’m fine with a new module for BSON.
Ralph > On Oct 19, 2017, at 10:07 AM, Gary Gregory <garydgreg...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Related: I was thinking of creating a new _module_ in core called > log4j-bson to provide a BSON Layout. This would be a separate module to > only drag in the BSON library when needed. Part of the breaking up Core > epic. > > Gary > > > On Thu, Oct 19, 2017 at 10:56 AM, Remko Popma <remko.po...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> I agree with Gary: this is just another Layout. Should not need another >> repo... >> Prototyping on another branch makes sense. >> >> On Fri, Oct 20, 2017 at 1:23 AM, Gary Gregory <garydgreg...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >>> Bleh, ANOTHER repo? We have so many already... but I see what the big >>> picture is. Would this add a new layout in Core? Maybe we should just >> start >>> with that... then grow... >>> >>> Gary >>> >>> On Thu, Oct 19, 2017 at 9:57 AM, Matt Sicker <boa...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> I mean in the logging services project. So it'd be a new repo. >>>> >>>> On 19 October 2017 at 10:48, Ralph Goers <ralph.go...@dslextreme.com> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> When you say “another component in the project” do you mean logging >>>>> services project or log4j? I’d prefer to see you do this in a >> separate >>>> repo >>>>> or at least a branch until we understand what it looks like. If it is >>>> going >>>>> to apply to many things it probably makes sense to be a separate >> repo. >>>>> >>>>> Ralph >>>>> >>>>>> On Oct 19, 2017, at 8:26 AM, Matt Sicker <boa...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> For generic structured records, I'd probably go with Avro or Thrift >>>> since >>>>>> LogEvents have a lot of standard fields with only a few optional >>>> map-like >>>>>> structures. For optimized log appending, the binary format was >>> proposed >>>>> as >>>>>> a way to append quickly and without garbage IIRC. >>>>>> >>>>>> On 19 October 2017 at 10:21, Gary Gregory <garydgreg...@gmail.com> >>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> What about BSON? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Gary >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Oct 19, 2017 08:41, "Matt Sicker" <boa...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I don't have the ticket on hand, but a few months ago, Remko >>>> suggested >>>>> a >>>>>>>> binary logging format that would allow for super fast appends of >>>>>>>> log-specific information along with companion files for >> additional >>>>>>> metadata >>>>>>>> not commonly used in log messages. I've been thinking about this >>>> idea a >>>>>>> bit >>>>>>>> in relation to existing structured layouts (both textual and >>> binary), >>>>>>> and I >>>>>>>> was thinking that it might be a useful format to standardize on >> for >>>> all >>>>>>> the >>>>>>>> logging projects. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> What I'd like to propose is making another component in the >> project >>>>> that >>>>>>>> would contain a reference implementation of encoding and decoding >>> the >>>>>>>> format in Java, C++, .NET, and PHP (or as a C binding for PHP). >>>>>>>> Potentially, this format could be inclusive with other logging >>>> projects >>>>>>>> like Logstash, Logback, Splunk, etc. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> What do you all think? Is this a good idea? Or would this be >>>>> duplicating >>>>>>>> effort from other standards already? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>> Matt Sicker <boa...@gmail.com> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> Matt Sicker <boa...@gmail.com> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Matt Sicker <boa...@gmail.com> >>>> >>> >>
