logging-log4j-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Matt Sicker <boa...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: I'd like to change how the FQCN stuff works in AbstractLogger
Date Wed, 10 Sep 2014 03:07:15 GMT
What about the logp, entering, exiting, and throwing methods which all take
a source class name and a source method name? Just ignore them?

On 9 September 2014 21:40, Remko Popma <remko.popma@gmail.com> wrote:

> My take would be to drop the seqNo and threadID integer, and for level,
> check if its a built-in JUL level which can be translated to a built-in
> log4j level. If it's not a built-in JUL level we can do a log4j
> Level.forName() call to create that custom level in log4j as well.
> Thoughts?
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On 2014/09/10, at 11:07, Matt Sicker <boards@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I'm actually thinking of some sort of LogRecordMessage or similar which
> takes a useful subset of LogRecord.
>
> On 9 September 2014 21:01, Matt Sicker <boards@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I've got ranges in place to map to standard levels, but custom level
>> support is currently done through the MDC. Should I use a MapMessage
>> instead? Make a new Message type just for log4j-jul? There's metadata in
>> some of these Logger methods that I'd like to include, but if the MDC isn't
>> the best way to do that, then I'd prefer another way. I noticed that
>> pax-logging does this for every log event to include some metadata about
>> the OSGi bundle that made the log call, so I kept up the style.
>>
>> As to the static field, yes, I noticed that, too. It's only for a
>> sequence number, and we have our own (better) way of doing that with
>> on-demand sequencing (and using the AtomicXxx classes indeed) anyways.
>>
>> On 9 September 2014 20:39, Remko Popma <remko.popma@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Fro a performance point of view, it would be great if we could avoid
>>> creating LogRecord instances. Not just from a GC perspective, but in java6
>>> the LogRecord constructor synchronizes on a static variable(!): big
>>> bottleneck. This is improved (using AtomicXxx) in java7.
>>>
>>> Also would great if we can avoid using the ThreadContext MDC for every
>>> log event. (Its copy-on-write design is not a good match for this usage...)
>>>
>>> Would there be a way to map custom JUL log levels to custom Log4j levels?
>>>
>>> Sent from my iPhone
>>>
>>> On 2014/09/10, at 10:20, Matt Sicker <boards@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Actually, now that I look at it, I can just use an inner class with
>>> ExtendedLoggerWrapper to get at those protected methods I mentioned. I
>>> mean, that appears to be the point of it! Let me see if it does everything
>>> I needed.
>>>
>>> On 9 September 2014 20:08, Matt Sicker <boards@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Now that I'm looking at this, what's the point of all the methods that
>>>> take a FQCN instead of having just the ones in ExtendedLogger? I'm not sure
>>>> why we didn't just use a field in AbstractLogger in the first place.
>>>>
>>>> On 9 September 2014 19:14, Matt Sicker <boards@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I'm making some changes to log4j-jul to reduce redundant time spent
>>>>> constructing a LogRecord that I don't even want to use most of the time.
>>>>> However, the ExtendedLogger interface (which I need to use at the very
>>>>> least so that I can set the fqcn to java.util.logging.Logger) only provides
>>>>> a single version of logMessage (unlike AbstractLogger which has a bunch),
>>>>> and several methods like catching(), throwing(), etc., all depend on
>>>>> protected methods in AbstractLogger that I'd rather not re-implement.
It
>>>>> would be nice if I could just call the Logger methods I need, but they
all
>>>>> get called with the wrong fqcn.
>>>>>
>>>>> Can we use a non-static final field that contains the fqcn? If I
>>>>> could, I'd extend AbstractLogger myself, but I already have to extend
the
>>>>> JUL Logger class (should have been an interface, grrr). Thus, I can't
rely
>>>>> on AbstractLogger being the source of all these method calls. Unlike
the
>>>>> other adapters, JUL provides more various logger calls than we even have,
>>>>> and I don't think ExtendedLogger was written with this scenario in mind.
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't think this should be too large an impact of a change. I'm
>>>>> going to push up a proposal, but feel free to veto it or offer some
>>>>> suggestions!
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Matt Sicker <boards@gmail.com>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Matt Sicker <boards@gmail.com>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Matt Sicker <boards@gmail.com>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Matt Sicker <boards@gmail.com>
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Matt Sicker <boards@gmail.com>
>
>


-- 
Matt Sicker <boards@gmail.com>

Mime
View raw message