I remember doing the research for this many moons ago on a different project, and dynamically setting log levels (like we do via web ui) is simply not supported in slf4j.
On Tue, Dec 19, 2017 at 9:29 AM, Balazs Meszaros < balazs.mesza...@cloudera.com> wrote: > Thanks for reviewing Appy! > > 1. I tried to verify it, log level changes take place through the web ui. > 2. I put back fatals. > 3. The property files are still compatible, because I have not updated > log4j to log4j2 yet. But they won't be compatible after the update. > 4. I also updated those projects. > > Unfortunately there are some issues which need to be solved before updating > to log4j2: > 1. There are still some references in our java files to log4j (e.g. > LogManager references). We use it to set log levels from the code: > - on the web ui, > - in the unit tests (I removed them, because there were no asserts on the > log messages), > - some command line tools also configured log levels from the code. > 2. hbase-http also uses log4j for request logging. > > If we can't rid off from these dependencies, then our codebase won't be > completely independent from the logging implementation. > > Best regards, > Balazs > > On Tue, Dec 19, 2017 at 2:37 AM, Apekshit Sharma <a...@cloudera.com> > wrote: > > > Thanks for the ping here Stack. Posted review on the jira. > > Summary is, we need at least: > > 1) basic verification > > 2) fatal markers > > 3) clear picture on properties file: Is old one compatible? if not, we > need > > new ones and document what's breaking. New ones and documentation can be > > done in followup, but we need clear picture now. > > 4) Followup jira for hbase-backup/http or a reason why they can't be > done. > > > > Reverting this patch would be hell, wouldn't want to do it because we > > missed basic checks. > > > > -- Appy > > > > > > On Mon, Dec 18, 2017 at 3:53 PM, Apekshit Sharma <a...@cloudera.com> > > wrote: > > > > > Oh, just 60 pages of review :D > > > > > > -- Appy > > > > > > On Mon, Dec 18, 2017 at 3:48 PM, Stack <st...@duboce.net> wrote: > > > > > >> On Wed, Dec 13, 2017 at 10:09 AM, Stack <st...@duboce.net> wrote: > > >> > > >> > On Mon, Dec 11, 2017 at 12:49 PM, Apekshit Sharma < > a...@cloudera.com> > > >> > wrote: > > >> > > > >> >> Seems like good idea: > > >> >> - remove long dead dependency > > >> >> - a bit cleaner code > > >> >> - hadoop also moved to slf4j > > >> >> > > >> >> Quickly looking at codebase to get idea of amount of work required, > > >> here > > >> >> are some numbers: > > >> >> - LOG.debug : ~1800 > > >> >> - LOG.trace : ~500 > > >> >> - LOG.info: ~3000 > > >> >> > > >> >> Looking at this patch ( > > >> >> https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/attachment/12901002/ > > >> >> HBASE-19449.1.patch), > > >> >> seemed like tedious and repetitive task, was wondering if someone > has > > >> >> automated it already. > > >> >> Looks like this can help reduce a huge part of grunt work: > > >> >> https://www.slf4j.org/migrator.html. > > >> >> > > >> >> But before progressing, as a basic validation, can we see: > > >> >> - an example of old vs new log lines (that there is no diff, or we > > are > > >> >> comfortable with what's there) > > >> >> - an example of changes in properties file > > >> >> > > >> >> Maybe starting with hbase-examples module for quick POC. > > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> > I like your suggestion Appy, > > >> > S > > >> > > > >> > > > >> Balazs has a patch up on HBASE-10092 making the move. Intend to commit > > it > > >> in next day or so unless objection. > > >> S > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > > >> > > > >> >> -- Appy > > >> >> > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > -- Appy > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > -- Appy > > >
