accumulo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Sean Busbey <bus...@cloudera.com>
Subject Re: Proposal for splitting ACCUMULO-1242 into subtasks.
Date Tue, 13 May 2014 02:45:07 GMT
+1 LGTM

Overall approach looks good, we can deal with details in review.

-- 
Sean
On May 12, 2014 8:49 PM, "Mike Drob" <mdrob@mdrob.com> wrote:

> +1.
>
> You've spent more time thinking about this than the rest of us combined,
> probably, so if you think this is the best approach I recommend just going
> for it. If we discover other issues as they crop up, then we can deal with
> them at that point.
>
> Mike
>
>
> On Mon, May 12, 2014 at 9:15 PM, Ed Coleman <dev1@etcoleman.com> wrote:
>
> > I am willing to take another run at the Consistent Logging ticket,
> > ACCUMULO-1242, but I'd like to achieve a consensus on an approach before
> > starting.
> >
> > The tl;dr version - I would like to split ACCUMULO-1242 into subtasks.
> > Target version would be 1.7.0 (or whatever it gets called, would not mind
> > doing it for 1.6.1 too, to ease merges of bug fixes - esp. for the "easy"
> > conversions.
> >
> > Now the novel-length version (and sorry for the length)
> >
> > I think that the ACCUMULO-1242 should be split into a number of subtasks
> -
> > at least three or maybe four. This way individual subtasks can be
> committed
> > independently to allow a thorough review of the more complex changes. The
> > breakdown that I am thinking of would go from easy, mostly non-functional
> > changes and progressively become more complex and could require
> rethinking
> > the way certain things are done for the "hardest" ones.  The breakdown
> > would
> > also narrow the number of files effected as the subtasks progressed from
> > easy to hard.  The "easy" changes would impact most files, while the most
> > complex changes would impact relatively few.
> >
> > To be clear, with this approach some files may be changed multiple times
> by
> > different sub-tasks - in case that influences anyone's opinion to this
> > approach.
> >
> > The breakdown that I am suggesting as a starting point for discussion is:
> >
> > Subtask-1:
> >
> > a) Replace package statements and Logger.getLogger to
> > LoggerFactory.getLogger
> >
> > b) Use parameterized messages ( {} ) instead of concatenation and remove
> > any
> > if level enabled tests (.isDebugEnabled(), .isInfoEnabled().)- this may
> > provide a very slight performance gain.
> >
> > c) Add messages to all exceptions - required by slf4j and generally an
> > accepted practice.
> >
> > d) Eliminate printStackTrace with log messages of an appropriate level
> > (ACCUMULO-2628 covers this and could be done at the same time.)
> >
> > This is the low hanging fruit and should eliminate log4j dependencies in
> > most classes - maybe 80% to 90% or more. [Because (c) and (d) will
> slightly
> > change the log output, maybe they are more appropriate for subtask-2?]
> > [Question: any issue with changing log statement wording in (b) if it
> > improves clarity? - which would also slightly change log output which
> would
> > break anyone that is doing log scraping.]
> >
> > Subtask-2:
> >
> > a) Remove FATAL level and replace with MARKER interface supported by
> > logback
> > and log4j-2 [a future effort could be to extend MARKER usage to allow
> finer
> > grained log filtering, but probably not as part of this effort.]
> >
> > b) Remove dynamic manipulation of log levels in testing by using
> > test-specific parameter files (if desired)
> >
> > Subtask-3:
> >
> > a) Rework TRACING and log forwarding so they do not have a log4j
> dependency
> >
> > Subtask-4:
> >
> > a) Rework shell debug command facility that dynamically changes the log
> > level.
> >
> > With the current code base it may be impractical to completely remove
> > direct
> > log4j dependencies, but we should be able to isolate it to a few
> instances
> > in the server-side code and completely remove it from the client-side
> code.
> >
> > Another thing to note is that many of the limitations of slf4j are
> present
> > in log4j-2 -neither allow dynamic log level changes programmatically or
> > through DOM manipulation but instead watch the property file and react
> when
> > it is modified. So, even if you really don't care about slf4j, similar
> > changes will be required to upgrade log4j-2.
> >
> > Once there is a consensus I (or Christopher ?) could make the sub-tasks
> and
> > I'll get started.
> >
> >
> >
> >
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message