Return-Path: X-Original-To: apmail-jmeter-dev-archive@minotaur.apache.org Delivered-To: apmail-jmeter-dev-archive@minotaur.apache.org Received: from mail.apache.org (hermes.apache.org [140.211.11.3]) by minotaur.apache.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 1610E10104 for ; Sat, 29 Jun 2013 22:05:23 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 64359 invoked by uid 500); 29 Jun 2013 22:05:23 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-jmeter-dev-archive@jmeter.apache.org Received: (qmail 64336 invoked by uid 500); 29 Jun 2013 22:05:23 -0000 Mailing-List: contact dev-help@jmeter.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: dev@jmeter.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list dev@jmeter.apache.org Received: (qmail 64328 invoked by uid 99); 29 Jun 2013 22:05:22 -0000 Received: from athena.apache.org (HELO athena.apache.org) (140.211.11.136) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Sat, 29 Jun 2013 22:05:22 +0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=1.5 required=5.0 tests=HTML_MESSAGE,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of philippe.mouawad@gmail.com designates 209.85.215.44 as permitted sender) Received: from [209.85.215.44] (HELO mail-la0-f44.google.com) (209.85.215.44) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Sat, 29 Jun 2013 22:05:19 +0000 Received: by mail-la0-f44.google.com with SMTP id er20so3295184lab.31 for ; Sat, 29 Jun 2013 15:04:57 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; bh=r5C0IkKOgr0ZKgDEUztzKBzHv3G3VX7ZfED1hqofhGw=; b=n0tmyOjBcRhmYHqSRIQhY+eaWdp8o5Dfn4DLAHVyFo4YEmAr/Ot7b04fhT1Yiz+cCH rIHwYWYgw/L/ZKFg1Mg2S9N6nAxwoV7MNu5fFK/V36YdJuuNyy1kq+SehD9JYZFVKsPZ dq/NhJKCUAet1Phi3IQMMBX1tuC3scWGC+xwR1GyeNF/7VZvwPdJo/bbd02BUMzXV0yE ipihBtMw5dOU1qNrtUI4Ey8t/plr1PQi45mfmSvNAHhjyOcr1TUQBAX2QhY1edAnQXyo rD4jYxLeEWCKCO/wHw/CZhY3mKhLe4iS6dZQ9uB10P8KTbaKHEzPl1KS7aHrSWHzv2E9 GtRA== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.112.150.231 with SMTP id ul7mr9057382lbb.92.1372543497298; Sat, 29 Jun 2013 15:04:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.114.6.164 with HTTP; Sat, 29 Jun 2013 15:04:57 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Sun, 30 Jun 2013 00:04:57 +0200 Message-ID: Subject: Re: Apache Excalibur Logger From: Philippe Mouawad To: "dev@jmeter.apache.org" Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7b3434c298693e04e0522ff7 X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org --047d7b3434c298693e04e0522ff7 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Another option would be to use new log4j 2 I still think this one should be handled some day. Regards Philippe On Wednesday, May 8, 2013, Philippe Mouawad wrote: > Hello, > I bump this one as since a while we have slf4j as a dependency. > > Regards > Philippe > > On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 11:01 PM, sebb > > wrote: > >> On 22 August 2012 23:44, Philippe Mouawad > >> wrote: >> > Last try to convince you :-) >> > >> > On Thursday, August 23, 2012, sebb wrote: >> > >> >> On 22 August 2012 21:43, Philippe Mouawad >> > >> >> wrote: >> >> > On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 7:21 PM, sebb > >> >> wrote: >> >> > >> >> >> On 22 August 2012 17:52, Milamber > >> >> wrote: >> >> >> > On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 4:34 PM, Philippe Mouawad < >> >> >> > philippe.mouawad@gmail.com > 'philippe.mouawad@gmail.com');> > wrote: >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> Restarting the discussion about logger. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> I agree with sebb java.util.logging is not great compared to >> >> >> slf4j/logback >> >> >> >> , log4j or commons-logging. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> My opinion is slf4j/logback would be the best choice as it's: >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> - the most up to date >> >> >> >> - is the next evolution of LOG4J for logback >> >> >> >> - was build from commons-logging experience for SLF4J >> >> >> >> - logback seems to have more features than log4j >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> I don't see the point of replacing the existing logging. >> >> >> What benefit would we get? >> >> >> >> >> > Does current implementation support MDC or NDC ? >> >> >> >> No idea what they are. >> >> >> >> >> > >> > >> > >> http://veerasundar.com/blog/2009/11/log4j-mdc-mapped-diagnostic-context-= example-code/ >> >> I see, basically a map of variables that can be added to log messages. >> >> > http://stackoverflow.com/search?q=3D%5Blog4j%5D+%2BMDC >> > >> > >> > Milamber wrote an article but it's in french. >> > >> >> > Oth >> > >> > er features I see: >> >> > >> >> > - Parameterized log messages : >> >> > http://slf4j.org/faq.html#logging_performance >> >> >> >> We already use the if enabled wrappers. >> >> >> >> More powerful as not String concat and cleaner logging >> > >> >> - Marker objects : see >> >> > - >> >> > >> >> >> http://stackoverflow.com/questions/10766411/overriding-the-logging-metho= ds-logger-warn-in-slf4j >> >> , >> >> > >> >> > - http://logback.qos.ch/manual/layouts.html#Evaluators >> >> >> >> Do we really need this functionality? >> >> Looks rather complicated to me. >> >> >> >> It could be helpful for debugging thread related issues >> > >> >> >> >> > >> >> > What's wrong with the existing functionality? >> >> >> >> >> > it is based on a retired project (Excalibur). It kind of hurts me. >> >> >> >> Irrelevant if it works. >> > >> > Yes but don't you think it is a bad thing to have libraries in End Of Lif= e > ? > It like using JDK1.4 no ? > >> > >> > I disagree. For dev committers and contributors it's important to hav= e >> Up >> > to date and documented APi with lots of resources ( stackoverflow) >> >> There are plenty of examples of the use of logging in the code. >> Anyone who glances at more than a few classes will see how logging is >> used. >> >> > For new comers, they will look at what Libraries are used, too old one= s >> car >> > fear or can be a negative point. >> >> I don't agree. >> Equally if a brand-new library is used, how well has it been tested? >> >> Yes but log4j, logback are hugely tested > >> > Furthermore are we sure performances of theseew libraries are not >> better ? >> > ( you will kill this argument ;) ) >> >> Are we sure they are not worse? Especially if they support a lot of >> special features. >> >> Yes > > >> But regardless, the effect on a test run is what counts. >> >> > >> >> > Not much documentation on web, I had to search last time when >> >> implementing >> >> > 41788 and 53261. API is limited compared to Commons-logging, log4j = , >> >> slf4j >> >> >> >> In what way is it limited? >> >> AFAIK, it's similar to commons-logging. >> >> >> >> No there are limitations on appenders additions, you cannot add, you >> must >> > set them all, at least one issue i faced. >> >> Sorry, I don't follow. >> >> Look at Log Viewer code changes: > https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D41788 > > >> > >> > >> >> > I remember when starting using jmeter (I knew at that time log4j, >> >> > commons-logging) I had to modify log level somewhere, I search a >> while >> >> > because it was a new mechanism to learn (had jmeter relied on >> existing >> >> conf >> >> > of log4j or other I would have found this very rapidly, ActiveMQ fo= r >> >> > example uses commons-logging, slf4j and possibly logback). >> >> > >> >> >> Would we lose any functionality by changing? >> >> >> >> >> > I don't think so. >> >> > But maybe you should detail all the features and we could check. >> >> >> >> That's quite difficult to do. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> It took a lot of work to get everything set up properly; and will >> be a >> >> >> very major undertaking to change everything. >> >> >> It's not just changes to class import statements and creating a >> >> >> different logger. >> >> >> There's documentation, and the way we use properties to control >> >> >> logging different classes and packages. >> >> >> If that changes, it could break some user installations. >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> > I agree it changes but log4j, commons-logging, slf4j are such >> standard >> >> that >> >> > it's very easy to find info, for example look at stackoverflow >> >> statistics: >> >> > >> >> > - http://stackoverflow.com/questions/tagged/slf4j : 390 question= s >> >> > - http://stackoverflow.com/questions/tagged/log4j : 2170 >> questions >> >> > - http://stackoverflow.com/questions/tagged/logback : 320 >> questions >> >> > - >> http://stackoverflow.com/questions/tagged/apache-commons-logging : >> >> 61 >> >> > questions >> >> > - logkit, avalon, excalibur : 0 questions >> >> > >> >> >> >> So? AFAICT, most of that relates to using and implementing logging, >> >> rather than configuring logging levels, which is the main issue for >> >> end users. >> >> >> >> They also relate to configuring , what i am trying to sat is that >> there is >> > much more docs on these new libs as on excalibur one. >> >> The only configuration that the end-user needs to do is to set the log >> level for the package(s). >> > It would be the same for log4j, logback > >> >> That aspect of configuration is quite sophisticated in Avalon. >> As well as quite easy to use (and trivial for developers, as the name >> is automatically created from the class name). >> > Same for log4j, logback > >> >> How would that work in other logging implementations? >> It's important that logging can be easily selectively enabled. >> >> Same for log4j, logback > > > > Regarding user, see my argument on contributors , plugin writers, > > developpers > > >> > >> > Users will also need to get learn a different way of controlling > logging. > >> >> > >> >> > >> > We could rely on underlying product documentation which is quite wel= l > >> known > >> > (log4j , logback ) instead of creating our own mechanism . > >> > We could then remove all Logging Configuration paragraph from > >> > jmeter.properties. > >> > > >> >> > >> >> > > >> >> > Perhaps, some issue with the logback dual licences (EPL and LGPL)= . > I'm > >> >> not > >> >> > sure if we can used the logback with only the choice of EPL > licence... > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > The commons-logging and the Log4j are under AL2.0, seems better t= o > >> use an > >> >> > ASF product in an ASF product? ;-) > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > >> >> >> I think we should really remove dependency on Apache Excalibur. > >> >> > >> >> We still use parts of Excalibur for JDBC pooling. > >> >> > >> >> I don't see the point of pooling if you are testing JDBC; it then > >> >> becomes as much a test of the pool rather than JDBC. > >> >> > >> > Don't understand this > >> > > >> >> > >> >> If we do want to support pooling, it should be selectable. > >> >> However I don't know if there is a standard Pooling API, so that > might > >> >> not be possible. > >> >> > >> >> Why not use commons-dbcp or tomcat-pool for this ? > >> > >> See separate thread. > >> > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > >> >> >> Regards > >> >> >> > >> >> >> Philippe > >> >> >> // Copying dialog from another thread: > >> >> >> > >> >> >> Philippe says > >> >> >> >> As we are now in these big changes (static final, interface > >> cleanup > >> >> ... > >> >> >> ) > >> >> >> >> Sebb, milamber is it ok for you if I start migration to > >> >> commons-logging > >> >> >> ? > >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> Milamber says: > >> >> >> > Why commons-loggings (not updated since 2008)? > >> >> >> > >> >> >> Sebb says: > >> >> >> AIUI it's not been updated since it works; there has been no nee= d > to > >> >> update > >> >> >> it. > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > Log4J ? > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > or directly java.util.logging.*? > >> >> >> > >> >> >> That's broken, according to what I read. > >> >> >> > >> >> >> On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 1:39 PM, Philippe Mouawad < > >> >> >> philippe.mouawad@gmail.com> wrote: > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > Hello Sebb, > >> >> >> > My responses below. > >> >> >> > Regards > >> >> >> > Philippe > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 1:02 PM, sebb wrote= : > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> >> On 23 January 2012 06:49, Philippe Mouawad < > >> >> philippe.mouawad@gmail.com> > >> >> >> >> wrote: > >> >> >> >> > Regarding logging, > >> >> >> >> > It CAN Go fast if we share work and each of us takes one SR= C > >> >> folder. > >> >> >> >> > It's =E0 matter f search replace for 90%. > >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> It's still the same amount of wor > > > > > -- > Cordialement. > Philippe Mouawad. > > > --=20 Cordialement. Philippe Mouawad. --047d7b3434c298693e04e0522ff7--