struts-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Lukasz Lenart <lukaszlen...@apache.org>
Subject Re: Less boilerplate in code
Date Thu, 22 May 2014 05:10:17 GMT
@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


Mime
View raw message