struts-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Chris Pratt <thechrispr...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Less boilerplate in code
Date Fri, 23 May 2014 20:04:06 GMT
Sorry, I should have included the link - https://code.google.com/p/anodyzed/

It isn't a replacement for async loggers, it works on the other end of the
problem, building the log message when it isn't necessary.

I would actually recommend SLF4j for two reasons.  One, it is the front
runner, almost a de-facto standard at this point.  And two, it supports
Log4j2. So there's no down side to picking SLF4j.  If you want to use
Log4j2, great, it's an awesome engine, but SLF4j is an awesome API and log
concentrator.  That's what it's good at, and how we should use it (IMHO).

Thanks.
  (*Chris*)


On Fri, May 23, 2014 at 12:19 PM, Christian Grobmeier
<grobmeier@gmail.com>wrote:

> On 23 May 2014, at 18:22, Chris Pratt wrote:
>
>  I'm preparing to start working on the logging for Struts 3.0, so we need
>> to
>> come to some consensus.  As I see it, the leading options are:
>>
>>  1. Don't do anything
>>  2. Switch to SLF4j (or Log4j2)
>>  3. Use Onyx as is
>>  4. Use Onyx as an Object Aware Facade directly to SLF4j (or Log4j2)
>>
>
> I am sure you have posted links before, but could you repost links to the
> Onxy project.
> I am unable to find the right page with google.
>
>
>  My preference would actually be #4.  Onyx has some nice readability and
>> performance benefits over using SLF4j/Log4j2 directly
>>
>
> I can't believe it has performance benefits compared to async loggers of
> log4j2:
> http://www.grobmeier.de/log4j-2-performance-close-to-insane-20072013.html
>
>
>  that I think are
>> worth the minimal effort.  Please weigh in with your opinion before I get
>> too deep into this.
>>
>
> Personally I would prefer Log4j2. I am biased as I am involved in that
> project.
> However this is not marketing, I really believe this is so far the best
> logging framework you can have atm (I haven't checked Onyx).
>
> Also I like the ASF and believe we are developing here for a reason. For
> the same
> reason I always prefer other ASF projects.
>
> If we do not want Log4j2 for some reason (it's currently RC1 - I say its
> stable
> and until we get S3 out it will be GA, but others may think different) then
> I definitely prefer slf4j. It has quite a market share and is commonly
> accepted
> by people.
>
> We need to have good reasons to not use what anybody else use.
>
> As I find slf4j/log4j2 syntax nice to read too and I doubt about
> performance
> benefits I would love to hear more arguments pro-Onyx.
>
> In short, my current preference is #2 with Log4j2, but if necessary even
> with slf4j.
>
> And I am willing to invest some time here too, esp if I could budget this
> on my log4j2 budget :-)
>
> Cheers
> Christian
>
>
>
>
>
>
>  (*Chris*)
>>
>>
>>
>> On Fri, May 23, 2014 at 7:17 AM, Dave Newton <davelnewton@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>  Just my $0.02:
>>>
>>> I'd prefer to see stuff that other people implement and have more eyes on
>>> take precedence over framework code.
>>>
>>> Similar to how XW has/had string utils duped by commons, etc, it just
>>> doesn't make sense to maintain that kind of boilerplate when it's already
>>> implemented, and implemented pretty well.
>>>
>>> Dave
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Fri, May 23, 2014 at 9:37 AM, Christian Grobmeier <
>>> grobmeier@gmail.com
>>>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>
>>>  On 23 May 2014, at 11:58, Lukasz Lenart wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Yes, we can break everything in 3.x but ... do we want to start from
>>>>
>>>>> scratch?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> It's not from scratch, is removing something from our codebase and use
>>>> something which already exists.
>>>>
>>>> And what's wrong in tiny logging facade? I've said it already, I will
>>>>
>>>>> say it again: not all ppl are using Log4j or SLF4j or jul - it's the
>>>>> worst thing if you must handle configuration of two or three different
>>>>> logging libraries because each framework is using a different one.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> First, we are a tiny active team. Why do we re-implement tiny facades
>>>> when they exist? I think with the less man-power we have we can surely
>>>> do better and more necessary things than reinventing the wheel.
>>>>
>>>> Surely, not all ppl use log4j or slf4j or jul. But most do. I can't help
>>>> but believe that there are only a handful people who still write their
>>>>
>>> own
>>>
>>>> logging thing.
>>>>
>>>> Please see this non-representative survey from ZeroTurnaround:
>>>> http://zeroturnaround.com/rebellabs/the-state-of-logging-in-java-2013/
>>>>
>>>> Looks like everybody is using *something*, except 7% of participants
>>>> who is doing their own thing. It also says slf4j and log4j are the most
>>>> used
>>>> logging frameworks.
>>>>
>>>> Sure, logging has something to do with configuration. If you want
>>>> to get out of this, then use the simple logging implementation which
>>>> comes with slf4j. If you need more, configure something in addition.
>>>>
>>>> Maybe Java logging is a mess, but I believe it's not to Struts to solve
>>>> it. Instead I would offer something which the most people use (maybe
>>>> slf4j) or
>>>> something which we believe in (maybe log4j2).
>>>>
>>>> Right now Struts2 doesn't force users to use given logging library, it
>>>>
>>>>> can be configured to use whatever user is using in his project - thus
>>>>> is huge advantage and I don't want to loose it.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> You have the same with slf4j. Why is having our own custom thing better
>>>> than something which is widely accepted and adopted?
>>>>
>>>> With slf4j you can:
>>>>
>>>> - do not configure anything, go with slf4j
>>>> - do configure something, go with the framework you like
>>>>
>>>> The same is true for the new log4j2 facade.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks for the discussion!
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> 2014-05-22 18:28 GMT+02:00 Christian Grobmeier <grobmeier@gmail.com>:
>>>>>
>>>>>  Hi all,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> with Struts 3.x we are allowed to "break things" and it is expected
>>>>>>
>>>>> that
>>>
>>>> we
>>>>>> do major steps.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Personally I would like to remove any custom made logging layer
>>>>>> and move on to a more standard one. Performance is not an issue,
when
>>>>>> logging
>>>>>> is done right:
>>>>>> http://www.grobmeier.de/log4j-2-performance-close-to-insane-
>>>>>> 20072013.html
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I consider commons-logging almost dead. It will not be developed
much
>>>>>> further, at least
>>>>>> not when looking at recent activity of the past years.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I think slf4j is stable and well maintained. You can even use log4j2
>>>>>>
>>>>> with
>>>
>>>> it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Saying log4j2 I am pretty much biased and need to tell you that log4j2
>>>>>> also
>>>>>> provides a logging interface similar to slf4j with which you can
>>>>>> switch
>>>>>> implementations.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In no case I would go to anything exotic or jul. The latter one often
>>>>>> needs
>>>>>> wrappers
>>>>>> to work as wanted.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That being said, I only see slf4j and log4j. If we want to stick
in
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> ASF
>>>>>> world
>>>>>> we can use the log4j2 interfaces and explain how to integrate in
>>>>>>
>>>>> example
>>>
>>>> logback.
>>>>>> That would be my preferred choice. Also I think log4j2 provides more
>>>>>> features and
>>>>>> is pretty much better maintained (my personal opinion)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If we want to use something which is longer on the market, then slf4j.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> cheers
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 22 May 2014, at 9:19, Chris Pratt wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You are correct, it delegates the actual logging to a logging engine,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> currently either Log4j, Logback, java.util.logging or to SLF4j.
>>>>>>> (*Chris*)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Wed, May 21, 2014 at 10:10 PM, Lukasz Lenart
>>>>>>> <lukaszlenart@apache.org>wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> @Chris
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Do I get it right - Onyx is just logging facade not the full-blow
>>>>>>>> logging library?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 2014-05-17 8:52 GMT+02:00 Lukasz Lenart <lukaszlenart@apache.org>:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Some were already addressed, another thing is that across
the
>>>>>>>>> framework we are using different semantic inside logging
messages,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> ie:
>>>
>>>>  "Value [#0] was excluded by pattern [#1]" and re-writing all these
>>>>>>>>> doesn't make sense. Right now XWork logging facade is
very thin -
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> one
>>>
>>>>  class implementing Logger interface and another implementing
>>>>>>>>> LoggerFactory - the rest is delegated to given logging
library.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Besides that, users don't care what kind of logging library
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> framework
>>>
>>>>  is using - till it doesn't interfere with the one used in their apps
>>>>>>>>> or clashes with logging layers from other frameworks.
Switching
>>>>>>>>> entirely to SLF4j can break few apps and we'll get a
lot of
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> complains
>>>
>>>>  why (not the first time ;-)
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> My plan looks like this:
>>>>>>>>> - add checking if given log level is enabled inside logging
methods
>>>>>>>>> - start migrating code to the new semantic (removing
if
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> (LOG.isXxxEnabled())
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> - migrate the rest of logging calls to use parameter
substitution
>>>>>>>>> - (or start with this before previous step) use Onyx
instead of
>>>>>>>>> current LoggerUtils
>>>>>>>>> - change order of discovering logging libs on the classpath
and put
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> SLF4j on top
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Regards
>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>> Łukasz
>>>>>>>>> + 48 606 323 122 http://www.lenart.org.pl/
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> 2014-05-15 23:14 GMT+02:00 Chris Pratt <thechrispratt@gmail.com>:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> What is your reluctance to using SLF4j.  It seems
like the right
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>  technology
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>  for the problem.
>>>>>>>>>> (*Chris*)
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> P.S.  ICLA on the way
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, May 14, 2014 at 11:16 PM, Lukasz Lenart <
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>  lukaszlenart@apache.org>wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> 2014-05-14 21:51 GMT+02:00 Chris Pratt <thechrispratt@gmail.com>:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, we could use Onyx's interface mechanism,
but I think
>>>>>>>>>>>> SLF4j's
>>>>>>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>>>>> probably more stable and definitely more
supported.  So I'd
>>>>>>>>>>>> probably
>>>>>>>>>>>> recommend that we extract the SLF4j support
object and use it
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>  directly
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>  (or
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> at least make it the default).  If it's something
that you're
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>  interested
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>  in, I'd have to fill out the forms to become a committer
on
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Struts.
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Where
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> would I find that information?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I'm not sure if this the right move, switching
to SLF4j over our
>>>>>>>>>>> custom solution. Please can we explore this topic
a bit?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> The first step to become a committer is to fill
ICLA
>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.apache.org/licenses/#clas
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Regards
>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>> Łukasz
>>>>>>>>>>> + 48 606 323 122 http://www.lenart.org.pl/
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>>>>>> ---------
>>>>>>>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
>>>>>>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@struts.apache.org
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>  ------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>>> ---------
>>>>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
>>>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@struts.apache.org
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>> ---
>>>>>> http://www.grobmeier.de
>>>>>> The Zen Programmer: http://bit.ly/12lC6DL
>>>>>> @grobmeier
>>>>>> GPG: 0xA5CC90DB
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@struts.apache.org
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>  ------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>> ---------
>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@struts.apache.org
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ---
>>>> http://www.grobmeier.de
>>>> The Zen Programmer: http://bit.ly/12lC6DL
>>>> @grobmeier
>>>> GPG: 0xA5CC90DB
>>>>
>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@struts.apache.org
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> e: davelnewton@gmail.com
>>> m: 908-380-8699
>>> s: davelnewton_skype
>>> t: @dave_newton <https://twitter.com/dave_newton>
>>> b: Bucky Bits <http://buckybits.blogspot.com/>
>>> g: davelnewton <https://github.com/davelnewton>
>>> so: Dave Newton <http://stackoverflow.com/users/438992/dave-newton>
>>>
>>>
>
> ---
> http://www.grobmeier.de
> The Zen Programmer: http://bit.ly/12lC6DL
> @grobmeier
> GPG: 0xA5CC90DB
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@struts.apache.org
>
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message