cxf-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Guillaume Nodet" <gno...@gmail.com>
Subject Fwd: Fwd: Logging framework
Date Tue, 18 Sep 2007 16:18:40 GMT
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Guillaume Nodet <gnodet@gmail.com>
Date: Sep 18, 2007 5:24 PM
Subject: Re: Fwd: Logging framework
To: Daniel Kulp <dkulp@apache.org>



On 9/18/07, Daniel Kulp <dkulp@apache.org > wrote:
>
>
>
> >   * nobody use Logger.setLevel() in the code
>
> Why?   Log4j certainly supports it.  You would just need to do:


See below.  The underlying log framework can be reconfigured at runtime.


>   * the new Logger implementation has to override all the log, logp,
> > logrb, entering, exiting, throwing, severe, warning, info, config,
> > fine, finer, finest, addHandler methods (they all check the level
> > before calling log, so you need to bypass these checks)
>
> You probably wouldn't need to.   In the constructor, do something like:
>
> public Log4JLogger(....) {
>    super(...);
>    log4jLogger = ........
>    super.setLevel(mapToJUL(log4jLogger.getEffectiveLevel()));
> }
>
> so the level that they are comparing to is the appropriate one.    They
> would then only need to override the log(LogRecord) method.


 But log4j supports dynamic reconfiguration which is very very handy when
you want to debug an existing application.  ServiceMix does that for
example,
and I've seen other products where you can configure the log levels through
JMX.  This means that you can not check the level when the logger is
created.
Hence the need to override all the methods.


> As a class inside cxf/commons with log4j as an optional dependency ?
> > But if we go this way, i would rather wrap slf4j so that a user can
> > easily choose its own logging framework.
>
> Well, slf4j has it's own issues.   It doesn't support the ResourceBundle
> stuff that we completely rely on.   It also has one less logging level,
> but not a huge deal.



Anyway, I guess both implementations would be roughly similar.



Dan
>
>
>
> > Sounds like creating a pluggable logging framework that would use
> > java.util.logging as an api ?  What a nice idea ;-)
> > But if that's the way to go ...  I'll write it.
> >
> >
> > Dan
> >
> > > On Tuesday 18 September 2007, Guillaume Nodet wrote:
> > > > ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> > > > From: Guillaume Nodet < gnodet@gmail.com>
> > > > Date: Sep 18, 2007 9:14 AM
> > > > Subject: Re: Logging framework
> > > > To: Daniel Kulp < dkulp@apache.org>
> > > >
> > > > I thought about that.
> > > > The only problem is that Logger is a class and its own factory
> > > > (thanks for extensibility design).  It also mixes concern like
> > > > logging and configuration.  Keeping the Logger class does not
> > > > ensure which methods are used in the CXF code base.
> > > > We can implement our own LogManager to create our derived
> > > > Logger, but this is a system global variable to configure, which
> > > > means it has side effect on all the VM :-(
> > > > Also, it does not work because the LogManager is initialized
> > > > only once when the logging system is initialized, which means
> > > > that when CXF is loaded, it may already be too late to set our
> > > > own LogManager.
> > > > I wish your idea could work, that would be much easier...
> > > >
> > > > On 9/18/07, Daniel Kulp < dkulp@apache.org> wrote:
> > > > > Guillaume,
> > > > >
> > > > > All creation of Logger      objects now go through the
> > > > > LogUtils.createL7nLogger(...) calls.   Thus, IMO, you should
> > > > > just update those two methods to wrapper things like Log4j with
> > > > > something that implements the Logger interface and return that.
> > > > >  That would be the lowest impact on existing code, we could all
> > > > > still use the j.u.l API's, etc... (except we need to make sure
> > > > > to create the loggers through LogUtils, which we should anyway
> > > > > for i18n reasons.)
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Dan
> > > > >
> > > > > On Monday 17 September 2007, Guillaume Nodet wrote:
> > > > > > It seems CXF logging uses java.util.logging, which is fine
> > > > > > for a standalone product, but not so fine when integrating CXF
> > > > > > inside another product (thinking about geronimo, servicemix,
> > > > > > etc...). The main problem is that lots of products uses log4j
> > > > > > or another logging mechanism, and not being able to integrate
> > > > > > and use the same logging mechanism is imho a real pain for
> > > > > > users who want to debug and see what happens.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I'm thinking about creating a interface
> > > > > > org.apache.cxf.common.logging .Logger that would be used
> > > > > > instead of the java.util.logging.Logger class.  The LogUtils
> > > > > > helper class would reuse a default implementation using
> > > > > > java.util.logging, while other products could implement their
> > > > > > own version to wrap their preferred logging api.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Thoughts ?
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > J. Daniel Kulp
> > > > > Principal Engineer
> > > > > IONA
> > > > > P: 781-902-8727    C: 508-380-7194
> > > > > daniel.kulp@iona.com
> > > > > http://www.dankulp.com/blog
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Cheers,
> > > > Guillaume Nodet
> > > > ------------------------
> > > > Blog: http://gnodet.blogspot.com/
> > >
> > > --
> > > J. Daniel Kulp
> > > Principal Engineer
> > > IONA
> > > P: 781-902-8727    C: 508-380-7194
> > > daniel.kulp@iona.com
> > > http://www.dankulp.com/blog
>
>
>
> --
> J. Daniel Kulp
> Principal Engineer
> IONA
> P: 781-902-8727    C: 508-380-7194
> daniel.kulp@iona.com
> http://www.dankulp.com/blog
>



-- 
Cheers,
Guillaume Nodet
------------------------
Blog: http://gnodet.blogspot.com/


-- 
Cheers,
Guillaume Nodet
------------------------
Blog: http://gnodet.blogspot.com/

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