incubator-yoko-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Daniel Kulp <>
Subject Re: Logging guidelines
Date Thu, 22 Jun 2006 12:08:58 GMT

> Comparing with the Geronimo logging levels,
> SEVERE corresponds to FATAL
> nothing corresponds to ERROR
> WARNING corresponds to WARN
> INFO corresponds to INFO
> CONFIG corresponds to nothing
> FINE corresponds to DEBUG
> FINER corresponds to TRACE
> FINEST corresponds to nothing

I think it would be better if it was:

FINE corresponds to nothing
FINER corresponds to FINER
FINEST corresponds to TRACE

That leaves "FINE" open as a spot between info and debug.    One area I think 
we use that spot in celtix is for logging buffers.   Buffers are something 
that falls between info stuff (service deployed, client connect, etc...) and 
debug.   Many times, people want the buffers, but without all the extra debug 
stuff that really doesn't apply to them.

That said, buffers are more useful in SOAP/XML than IIOP.   :-)

> In j.u.l, this becomes:
>     if(logger.isLoggable(Level.FINER) {
>         log.finer("About to do stuff " + stuff);
>     }
> I personally don't like this style very well. Wouldn't it be an idea to
> create a log utility object and do something like this:
>     LogUtil.log(logger, Level.FINER, "About to do stuff " + stuff);
> or perhaps even
>     LogUtil.logFiner(logger, "About to do stuff " + stuff);

Neither of those avoid the string concatination.   The whole point of the "if" 
statement is to make sure the string concat isn't done as that is potentially 
very costly.   It's a little more verbose, but it's really the only way to 
avoid it.

That said, the "more correct" way to do it would be with a resource bundle:
log.log(Level.FINER, "ABOUT_TO_DO_STUFF_ID", stuff);
or, since it's FINER and we don't really care anout localizationn:
log.log(Level.FINER, "About to do stuff {0}", stuff);
That only works for a single param though.    For multiple params, it would 

log.log(Level.FINER, "About to do stuff {0} and {1}",
                                   new Object[] {stuff, stuff1});
in which case you would want to wrap it with the if statement to avoid 
the "new Object[]" creation.   (although the Object[] creation is a lot 
cheaper than the string concat)

J. Daniel Kulp
Principal Engineer
P: 781-902-8727    C: 508-380-7194   F:781-902-8001

View raw message