Return-Path: X-Original-To: apmail-logging-log4j-dev-archive@www.apache.org Delivered-To: apmail-logging-log4j-dev-archive@www.apache.org Received: from mail.apache.org (hermes.apache.org [140.211.11.3]) by minotaur.apache.org (Postfix) with SMTP id A941C11A0A for ; Wed, 11 Jun 2014 00:47:44 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 39714 invoked by uid 500); 11 Jun 2014 00:47:44 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-logging-log4j-dev-archive@logging.apache.org Received: (qmail 39663 invoked by uid 500); 11 Jun 2014 00:47:44 -0000 Mailing-List: contact log4j-dev-help@logging.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: List-Help: List-Post: List-Id: "Log4J Developers List" Reply-To: "Log4J Developers List" Delivered-To: mailing list log4j-dev@logging.apache.org Received: (qmail 39651 invoked by uid 99); 11 Jun 2014 00:47:44 -0000 Received: from nike.apache.org (HELO nike.apache.org) (192.87.106.230) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Wed, 11 Jun 2014 00:47:44 +0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=2.2 required=5.0 tests=HTML_MESSAGE,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: domain of garydgregory@gmail.com designates 209.85.192.176 as permitted sender) Received: from [209.85.192.176] (HELO mail-pd0-f176.google.com) (209.85.192.176) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Wed, 11 Jun 2014 00:47:42 +0000 Received: by mail-pd0-f176.google.com with SMTP id p10so6634380pdj.21 for ; Tue, 10 Jun 2014 17:47:17 -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=UdtbEZlDAyuMpQe6tp2FVrgJIocGt7LRkl2H67tRVmM=; b=QM5GAzLwBdlMjcmGnDMCjC8BvmvzYxKNwAHEfkZBaPBhGnOF10Uj10m8KwtIaZzmYh XpmgTBWThJ1oWPQ2Uh5AmnfCohHDTKqkWybBKP5YIkV/8BBVH5AtWQGsyN/wDwf4hsZh avmOPhWT7s3vTPJrnp7OZmNjhpGFuFuyaNX+5mohb2ulMVsoT4d7c+636t4tzsdfMIoS XPxhWpJkzamox6o9fUJATdwVFbO8rjsZGklVt+j+DJO51LpUZoo46c6wwhT/YagQ+Bba TTPPRG++mxXhBpFV5itvA4hri3QXmyT+Qg07d35VXaXCgLDhbDO4YqXiwuoJJ7ESmSZo fSTQ== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.68.186.33 with SMTP id fh1mr728575pbc.140.1402447637050; Tue, 10 Jun 2014 17:47:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.70.127.196 with HTTP; Tue, 10 Jun 2014 17:47:16 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <997B1099-7475-473D-AFEC-9CB624933DC3@apache.org> References: <4051CD57-78C2-4CD2-8FDC-7A50CA87D03D@dslextreme.com> <997B1099-7475-473D-AFEC-9CB624933DC3@apache.org> Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2014 20:47:16 -0400 Message-ID: Subject: Re: debug output From: Gary Gregory To: Log4J Developers List Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7bd7642c38fbfd04fb84c9bd X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org --047d7bd7642c38fbfd04fb84c9bd Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Maybe Matt can shed a light on this? Gary On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 8:43 PM, Ralph Goers wrote: > I don't know exactly what I would be vetoing. I have no problem with some > of the refactoring. The commit(s) that changed the logging probably > happened weeks ago and I am just noticing now. > > But yes, I want the logging aspect of the changes reverted back to what > was previously being done. > > Sent from my iPad > > On Jun 10, 2014, at 5:34 PM, Gary Gregory wrote: > > Well, for Log4j Plugins, one way to configure should be plenty. I am OK > with the factory method pattern, while it makes for some long signatures, I > like that it is all in one place. > > May I suggest a simple "-1" reply on the ML on the changes to logging? Do > you feel a VETO is inappropriate here? > > Gary > > > On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 7:57 PM, Ralph Goers wrote: > >> I think the discussion was not on its own thread. I thought there was >> agreement that there should be only one way to configure plugins. I prefer >> the factory method simply because it would be a whole lot of effort to >> convert everything to a builder and I just don't think the benefit is worth >> the effort. >> >> I spent a lot of time making the debug output "nice" and easily >> understandable so I am a bit upset that it was tossed and replaced with >> what you see below. >> >> Ralph >> >> Sent from my iPad >> >> On Jun 10, 2014, at 4:31 PM, Gary Gregory wrote: >> >> On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 7:11 PM, Ralph Goers >> wrote: >> >>> I am working on a new Appender and am noticing that the debug output is >>> now far less useful than it used to be. I used to see the factory method >>> being invoked with all of its parameters very nicely formatted. Now I see >>> >>> 2014-06-10 16:02:37,858 DEBUG No compatible method annotated with >>> interface org.apache.logging.log4j.core.config.plugins.PluginBuilderFactory >>> found in class class org.apache.logging.log4j.web.appender.ServletAppender. >>> 2014-06-10 16:02:37,858 DEBUG Found factory method class >>> org.apache.logging.log4j.web.appender.ServletAppender.public static >>> org.apache.logging.log4j.web.appender.ServletAppender >>> org.apache.logging.log4j.web.appender.ServletAppender.createAppender(org.apache.logging.log4j.core.Layout,org.apache.logging.log4j.core.Filter,java.lang.String,java.lang.String). >>> 2014-06-10 16:02:37,864 DEBUG Constructing plugin of type class >>> org.apache.logging.log4j.web.appender.ServletAppender >>> 2014-06-10 16:02:37,864 DEBUG PatternLayout(%m%n) >>> 2014-06-10 16:02:37,864 DEBUG Constructing plugin of type class >>> org.apache.logging.log4j.web.appender.ServletAppender >>> 2014-06-10 16:02:37,865 DEBUG Constructing plugin of type class >>> org.apache.logging.log4j.web.appender.ServletAppender >>> 2014-06-10 16:02:37,865 DEBUG Attribute(name="Servlet") >>> 2014-06-10 16:02:37,865 DEBUG Constructing plugin of type class >>> org.apache.logging.log4j.web.appender.ServletAppender >>> 2014-06-10 16:02:37,865 DEBUG Null string given to convert. Using >>> default [null]. >>> 2014-06-10 16:02:37,866 DEBUG Attribute(ignoreExceptions="null") >>> >>> This is far more verbose, repetitive, and is nowhere near as clear as it >>> used to be. >>> >>> Can you please get the logging output back to the old format? >>> >>> Also, can we change PatternLayout back to a factory and remove the >>> message about no builder factory being present? >>> >> >> I think we need to decide how many ways there are to configure a plugin: >> factory, builder, and whatever else we've been discussing. This is getting >> quite confusing! >> >> I thought we had a thread going on the topic already... >> >> Gary >> >> >>> >>> Ralph >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> 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 >> >> > > > -- > 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 > > -- 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 --047d7bd7642c38fbfd04fb84c9bd Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Maybe Matt can shed a light on this?

Gar= y


On= Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 8:43 PM, Ralph Goers <rgoers@apache.org> wrote:
I don't know exac= tly what I would be vetoing. =C2=A0I have no problem with some of the refac= toring. The commit(s) that changed the logging probably happened weeks ago = and I am just noticing now.

But yes, I want the logging aspect of the changes rever= ted back to what was previously being done.

Sent from my iPad
<= div>

On Jun 10, 2014, at 5:34 PM, Gary Gregory &l= t;garydgregory@= gmail.com> wrote:

Well, for Lo= g4j Plugins, one way to configure should be plenty. I am OK with the factor= y method pattern, while it makes for some long signatures, I like that it i= s all in one place.

May I suggest a simple "-1" reply on the ML on the changes to= logging? Do you feel a VETO is inappropriate here?

Gary


On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 7:57 PM, Ralph Goers <rgoers@apac= he.org> wrote:
I think the discussio= n was not on its own thread. =C2=A0I thought there was agreement that there= should be only one way to configure plugins. =C2=A0I prefer the factory me= thod simply because it would be a whole lot of effort to convert everything= to a builder and I just don't think the benefit is worth the effort.

I spent a lot of time making the debug output "nic= e" and easily understandable so I am a bit upset that it was tossed an= d replaced with what you see below.

Ralph

Sent from my iPad

On Jun 10, 2014, at 4:31 PM, Gary= Gregory <ga= rydgregory@gmail.com> wrote:

On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 7:11 PM, Ralph Goers <ralph.goers@dslext= reme.com> wrote:
I am wor= king on a new Appender and am noticing that the debug output is now far les= s useful than it used to be. I used to see the factory method being invoked= with all of its parameters very nicely formatted. =C2=A0Now I see

2= 014-06-10 16:02:37,858 DEBUG No compatible method annotated with interface = org.apache.logging.log4j.core.config.plugins.PluginBuilderFactory found in = class class org.apache.logging.log4j.web.appender.ServletAppender.
2014-06-10 16:02= :37,858 DEBUG Found factory method class org.apache.logging.log4j.web.appen= der.ServletAppender.public static org.apache.logging.log4j.web.appender.Ser= vletAppender org.apache.logging.log4j.web.appender.ServletAppender.createAp= pender(org.apache.logging.log4j.core.Layout,org.apache.logging.log4j.core.F= ilter,java.lang.String,java.lang.String).
2014-06-10 16:02= :37,864 DEBUG Constructing plugin of type class org.apache.logging.log4j.we= b.appender.ServletAppender
2014-06-10 16:02:37,864 DEBUG PatternLayout(%m%n)
2014-06-10 16:02:37,864 DEBUG Constr= ucting plugin of type class org.apache.logging.log4j.web.appender.ServletAp= pender
2014-06-10 16:02= :37,865 DEBUG Constructing plugin of type class org.apache.logging.log4j.we= b.appender.ServletAppender
2014-06-10 16:02:37,865 DEBUG Attribute(name=3D"Servlet")
2014-06-10 16:02:3= 7,865 DEBUG Constructing plugin of type class org.apache.logging.log4j.web.= appender.ServletAppender
2014-06-10 16:02= :37,865 DEBUG Null string given to convert. Using default [null].
2014-06-10 16:02:37,= 866 DEBUG Attribute(ignoreExceptions=3D"null")

This is far more verbose, repetitive, and is nowh= ere near as clear as it used to be.

Can you please= get the logging output back to the old format?

Also, can we change PatternLayout back to a factory and remove the message = about no builder factory being present? =C2=A0

I think we need to decide how many ways there are to config= ure a plugin: factory, builder, and whatever else we've been discussing= . This is getting quite confusing!

I thought we had a thread going on the topic already...

Gary
= =C2=A0

Ralph
=



--



--



--
--047d7bd7642c38fbfd04fb84c9bd--