logging-log4j-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Remko Popma <rem...@yahoo.com>
Subject Re: LOG4J2-242 (Fluent Logging)
Date Mon, 29 Jul 2013 23:57:42 GMT
It is unfortunate that you've already put a lot of work into this.
For me, I am firmly in the "don't do this" camp. (Sorry Nick)

I think a fluent interface would add unnecessary complexity that does not add any value. 
We currently have a single method call that does a bunch of work.
IMO, splitting up that work to make it "look fluent" is not what fluent is about. Fluent is
more than just a coding style, it should simplify and remove clutter.

The canonical example uses fluent correctly, *to reduce complexity*:
{code}
private void makeNormal(Customer customer) { Order o1 = new Order(); customer.addOrder(o1);
OrderLine line1 = new OrderLine(6, Product.find("TAL")); o1.addLine(line1); OrderLine line2
= new OrderLine(5, Product.find("HPK")); o1.addLine(line2); OrderLine line3 = new OrderLine(3,
Product.find("LGV")); o1.addLine(line3); line2.setSkippable(true); o1.setRush(true); }
{code}


After:
{code}
private void makeFluent(Customer customer) { customer.newOrder() .with(6, "TAL") .with(5,
"HPK").skippable() .with(3, "LGV") .priorityRush(); 
    }
{code}

In the above example a fluent interface adds value because it allows many objects to cooperate
and it removes clutter.
But I would argue that we don't have any clutter that needs removing.


Remko 


________________________________
 From: Nick Williams <nicholas@nicholaswilliams.net>
To: Log4J Developers List <log4j-dev@logging.apache.org> 
Sent: Tuesday, July 30, 2013 8:08 AM
Subject: Re: LOG4J2-242 (Fluent Logging)
 


Well that's unfortunate. I just finished it. :-( Haven't committed it yet...

I'm not sure what the advantage is to delaying it to 2.1. Is it just to study it further?
I understand "do it" and "don't do it," but I don't understand "do it later."

I've heard a few "I don't like it fluent" and "I didn't understand how it's better" assertions,
and I think that's missing the point. I don't have a particular fondness for fluent APIs,
but some people use a different programming style and prefer them. Just because person A doesn't
like or understand how fluent is better, doesn't mean that person B doesn't like or understand
how fluent is better. Person B might like fluent so much they write their own logging API
wrapper around ours. Person B might not be able to wrap their head around non-fluent APIs
for one reason or another.

Is there a major difference between these two lines of code?

logger.error("This is a message with {} arguments {}.", arg1, arg2, throwable);
logger.error().message("This is a message with {} arguments{}.").arguments(arg1, arg2).exception(throwable);

No, no real difference. However, I /can/ see how it's more obvious that throwable is an /exception/
and not an /argument to the message/. And while I would probably, personally, use the first
line, I can certainly understand how someone might prefer the second line.

We're not talking about changing the existing API methods. We're talking about adding API
methods to support this different style of programming that some people prefer. If, after
all, our goal is to further adoption of Log4j, wouldn't it make sense to offer something like
this that many people use, even if we ourselves aren't familiar with it or don't prefer it?

My $0.02.

N


On Jul 29, 2013, at 5:52 PM, Paul Benedict wrote:

Whoever said this is a 2.1 feature, I concur.
>
>
>
>
>On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 5:45 PM, Ralph Goers <ralph.goers@dslextreme.com> wrote:
>
>I actually started to work on this myself several weeks ago and came to the conclusion
that I just couldn't grasp how it is better - with one exception. You can reuse the MessageBuilder
and replace the message or arguments, etc. But that seems dangerous as it wouldn't be thread
safe.
>>
>>
>>Ralph
>>
>>On Jul 29, 2013, at 1:48 PM, Gary Gregory wrote:
>>
>>On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 4:39 PM, Nick Williams <nicholas@nicholaswilliams.net>
wrote:
>>>
>>>I'm working on LOG4J2-242 to add the ability to log fluently. It's going to work
something like this:
>>>>
>>>>interface Logger:
>>>>    + MessageBuilder trace();
>>>>    + MessageBuilder debug();
>>>>    + MessageBuilder info();
>>>>    + MessageBuilder warn();
>>>>    + MessageBuilder error();
>>>>    + MessageBuilder fatal();
>>>>    + MessageBuilder log(Level);
>>>>
>>>>+ interface MessageBuilder:
>>>>    message(String);
>>>>    message(Object);
>>>>    message(String, Object...);
>>>>    marker(Marker);
>>>>    exception(Throwable);
>>>>    argument(Object);
>>>>    arguments(Object...);
>>>>    log();
>>>>
>>>>Bruce (the requester) had suggested adding the methods that return MessageBuilder
to a different interface (as opposed to Logger) to keep from cluttering the Logger API. The
way I see it our options are:
>>>>
>>>>- Create a FluentLogger interface to house these methods. I don't like this
option because A) it complicates things significantly, B) it makes users have to call a different
method on LogManager (getFluentLogger) to get a FluentLogger, and C) it means users have to
have a Logger and a FluentLogger if they want to use both APIs.
>>>>
>>>>- Create a FluentLogger interface that extends Logger. This option is much
better. It avoids cluttering the Logger API if that's all someone wants to use, it doesn't
require someone to have a Logger and FluentLogger if they want to use both APIs, and it doesn't
complicate the implementation significantly (all implementations can just implement FluentLogger).
It does still mean LogManager (and related classes/interfaces) need getLogger and getFluentLogger
methods, which I don't necessarily like.
>>>>
>>>>- Just add these methods to Logger, which is what I intended to do from the
get-go and is what I still think is the best option.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> - and there's option 4: Don't do it.
>>>
>>>
>>>At first glance, adding these methods to Logger looks confusing and cluttered.
The less messy solution seems to me FLogger extends Logger.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Gary
>>> 
>>>
>>>
>>>>I'm going to proceed with #3 for now, but if someone has a strong opinion
otherwise please voice it so that we can discuss before I complete this.
>>>>
>>>>Nick
>>>>---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>To unsubscribe, e-mail: log4j-dev-unsubscribe@logging.apache.org
>>>>For additional commands, e-mail: log4j-dev-help@logging.apache.org
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>-- 
>>>
>>>E-Mail: garydgregory@gmail.com | ggregory@apache.org 
>>>Java Persistence with Hibernate, Second Edition
>>>JUnit in Action, Second Edition
>>>Spring Batch in Action
>>>Blog: http://garygregory.wordpress.com 
>>>Home: http://garygregory.com/
>>>Tweet! http://twitter.com/GaryGregory
>>
>
>
>-- 
>
>Cheers,
>Paul
Mime
View raw message