The more I think about this the more questions I have. As far as I can recall
the Appenders that support batching do so because there is a distinct
performance benefit to it and the underlying transport mechanism supports it.
But almost every different transport handles batching differently. Fo
> On Sep 24, 2020, at 11:48 AM, Volkan Yazıcı wrote:
>
> I think endOfBatch flag is still falling short of addressing the main
> issue: the appender is oblivious to the batching. Put another way, it
> cannot have an assumption whether endOfBatch is employed or not. Consider
> appender A honori
We don't provide a great reusable abstraction to batch log events and hand them
off to a sink (appender). If we're writing to disk (or similar) this isn't a
problem because we buffer at an entirely different layer -- using a
RandomAccessFile appender, after passing through the layout, my log eve
I think endOfBatch flag is still falling short of addressing the main
issue: the appender is oblivious to the batching. Put another way, it
cannot have an assumption whether endOfBatch is employed or not. Consider
appender A honoring endOfBatch flag, though the preceding filter F never
takes advant
Yeah, I forgot about the async logger ring buffer.
Ralph
> On Sep 24, 2020, at 8:56 AM, Carter Kozak wrote:
>
> The AsyncAppender more or less implements what you've described, except it
> forwards each event in the batch individually to a delegate appender and sets
> the end-of-batch marker
The AsyncAppender more or less implements what you've described, except it
forwards each event in the batch individually to a delegate appender and sets
the end-of-batch marker on the last one so the API isn't quite as pretty. We
could implement something similar that groups events up to some in
Well, Log4j only feeds events to Appenders one at a time. It has no place to
aggregate them. However, one Appender could wrap others to create a batch at
which point this would become useful. I suppose some other component could be
invented to create a batch but I am not sure where or how that
If one would look close to existing appenders, almost everyone of them
implements a custom batching solution. To the best of my knowledge, this is
mainly due to the constraint in the Appender interface:
void append(LogEvent event);
If this would have been replaced (enhanced?) with
void a
