aurora-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Bill Farner <wfar...@apache.org>
Subject Re: [PROPOSAL] Use standard logging practices
Date Wed, 30 Dec 2015 06:31:58 GMT
FYI i have updated my patch to switch us to log4j as a straw man (mostly
because i embarked before Dave's clarification)
https://reviews.apache.org/r/41785/

I'm interested in general feedback on the patch, but encourage continued
discussion on deciding between log4j and logback.


On Tue, Dec 29, 2015 at 9:55 PM, Bill Farner <wfarner@apache.org> wrote:

> Aha, good catch^2!
>
> On Tue, Dec 29, 2015 at 9:05 PM, Dave Lester <dave@davelester.org> wrote:
>
>> Looks like logback is actually dual-licensed under EPL v1.0 and LGPL.
>> http://logback.qos.ch/license.html <http://logback.qos.ch/license.html>
>>
>> So technically, the logbook EPL code could be included in object/binary
>> form http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#category-b <
>> http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#category-b>
>>
>> > On Dec 29, 2015, at 10:34 PM, Jake Farrell <jfarrell@apache.org> wrote:
>> >
>> > Logback can not be used as it is LGPL licensed
>> >
>> > -Jake
>> >
>> > On Tue, Dec 29, 2015 at 7:02 PM, Jeff Schroeder <
>> jeffschroeder@computer.org>
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> >> Primarily it is faster, uses less memory, and annotates tracebacks with
>> >> package versions. The last one seems like a winner for debugging user
>> >> issues or operationally.
>> >>
>> >> http://logback.qos.ch/reasonsToSwitch.html
>> >>
>> >> I'm not strongly opinionated either way, but it does seem like a better
>> >> log4j.
>> >>
>> >> On Tuesday, December 29, 2015, Bill Farner <wfarner@apache.org> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>> I don't have a strong opinion about logback vs log4j.  Can you
>> summarize
>> >>> some of the tradeoffs?
>> >>>
>> >>> On Tue, Dec 29, 2015 at 3:52 PM, Jeff Schroeder <
>> >>> jeffschroeder@computer.org <javascript:;>>
>> >>> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>>> What about using logback instead of log4j? It has some interesting
>> >>> benefits
>> >>>> over log4j and we wouldn't be the first large mesos framework to
>> switch
>> >>> to
>> >>>> it.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Personally, I'd love to see glog burn and die in a fire.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> On Monday, December 28, 2015, Bill Farner <wfarner@apache.org
>> >>> <javascript:;>> wrote:
>> >>>>
>> >>>>> We're currently using some logging scaffolding carried over
from
>> >>> Twitter
>> >>>>> commons.  I would like to propose that we dismantle some of
this in
>> >>> favor
>> >>>>> of more standard java application logging conventions.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Concretely, i propose we remove the following scheduler command
line
>> >>>>> arguments:
>> >>>>> -logtostderr
>> >>>>> -alsologtostderr
>> >>>>> -vlog
>> >>>>> -vmodule
>> >>>>> -use_glog_formatter
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Instead of these, we can allow users to customize logging via
>> >> standard
>> >>>>> java.util.logging inputs (e.g. logging.properties).  We could
>> explore
>> >>>> using
>> >>>>> an alternative to java.util.logging, but i suggest we retain
that
>> >>> backend
>> >>>>> for now (since it's what we're currently using).
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>> --
>> >>>> Text by Jeff, typos by iPhone
>> >>>>
>> >>>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> --
>> >> Text by Jeff, typos by iPhone
>> >>
>>
>>
>

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