Last try to convince you :-) On Thursday, August 23, 2012, sebb wrote:
> On 22 August 2012 21:43, Philippe Mouawad > <philippe.moua...@gmail.com<javascript:;>> > wrote: > > On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 7:21 PM, sebb <seb...@gmail.com <javascript:;>> > wrote: > > > >> On 22 August 2012 17:52, Milamber <milam...@apache.org <javascript:;>> > wrote: > >> > On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 4:34 PM, Philippe Mouawad < > >> > philippe.moua...@gmail.com <javascript:;>> wrote: > >> > > >> >> Restarting the discussion about logger. > >> >> > >> >> I agree with sebb java.util.logging is not great compared to > >> slf4j/logback > >> >> , log4j or commons-logging. > >> >> > >> >> My opinion is slf4j/logback would be the best choice as it's: > >> >> > >> >> - the most up to date > >> >> - is the next evolution of LOG4J for logback > >> >> - was build from commons-logging experience for SLF4J > >> >> - logback seems to have more features than log4j > >> >> > >> > >> I don't see the point of replacing the existing logging. > >> What benefit would we get? > >> > > Does current implementation support MDC or NDC ? > > No idea what they are. > > http://veerasundar.com/blog/2009/11/log4j-mdc-mapped-diagnostic-context-example-code/ http://stackoverflow.com/search?q=%5Blog4j%5D+%2BMDC Milamber wrote an article but it's in french. > > Oth er features I see: > > > > - Parameterized log messages : > > http://slf4j.org/faq.html#logging_performance > > We already use the if enabled wrappers. > > More powerful as not String concat and cleaner logging > - Marker objects : see > > - > > > http://stackoverflow.com/questions/10766411/overriding-the-logging-methods-logger-warn-in-slf4j > , > > > > - http://logback.qos.ch/manual/layouts.html#Evaluators > > Do we really need this functionality? > Looks rather complicated to me. > > It could be helpful for debugging thread related issues > > > > > What's wrong with the existing functionality? > >> > > it is based on a retired project (Excalibur). It kind of hurts me. > > Irrelevant if it works. I disagree. For dev committers and contributors it's important to have Up to date and documented APi with lots of resources ( stackoverflow) For new comers, they will look at what Libraries are used, too old ones car fear or can be a negative point. Furthermore are we sure performances of theseew libraries are not better ? ( you will kill this argument ;) ) > > Not much documentation on web, I had to search last time when > implementing > > 41788 and 53261. API is limited compared to Commons-logging, log4j , > slf4j > > In what way is it limited? > AFAIK, it's similar to commons-logging. > > No there are limitations on appenders additions, you cannot add, you must set them all, at least one issue i faced. > > I remember when starting using jmeter (I knew at that time log4j, > > commons-logging) I had to modify log level somewhere, I search a while > > because it was a new mechanism to learn (had jmeter relied on existing > conf > > of log4j or other I would have found this very rapidly, ActiveMQ for > > example uses commons-logging, slf4j and possibly logback). > > > >> Would we lose any functionality by changing? > >> > > I don't think so. > > But maybe you should detail all the features and we could check. > > That's quite difficult to do. > > >> > >> It took a lot of work to get everything set up properly; and will be a > >> very major undertaking to change everything. > >> It's not just changes to class import statements and creating a > >> different logger. > >> There's documentation, and the way we use properties to control > >> logging different classes and packages. > >> If that changes, it could break some user installations. > >> > > > > I agree it changes but log4j, commons-logging, slf4j are such standard > that > > it's very easy to find info, for example look at stackoverflow > statistics: > > > > - http://stackoverflow.com/questions/tagged/slf4j : 390 questions > > - http://stackoverflow.com/questions/tagged/log4j : 2170 questions > > - http://stackoverflow.com/questions/tagged/logback : 320 questions > > - http://stackoverflow.com/questions/tagged/apache-commons-logging : > 61 > > questions > > - logkit, avalon, excalibur : 0 questions > > > > So? AFAICT, most of that relates to using and implementing logging, > rather than configuring logging levels, which is the main issue for > end users. > > They also relate to configuring , what i am trying to sat is that there is much more docs on these new libs as on excalibur one. Regarding user, see my argument on contributors , plugin writers, developpers > > > Users will also need to get learn a different way of controlling logging. > >> > >> > > We could rely on underlying product documentation which is quite well > known > > (log4j , logback ) instead of creating our own mechanism . > > We could then remove all Logging Configuration paragraph from > > jmeter.properties. > > > >> > >> > > >> > Perhaps, some issue with the logback dual licences (EPL and LGPL). I'm > >> not > >> > sure if we can used the logback with only the choice of EPL licence... > >> > > >> > > >> > The commons-logging and the Log4j are under AL2.0, seems better to > use an > >> > ASF product in an ASF product? ;-) > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> I think we should really remove dependency on Apache Excalibur. > >> > >> We still use parts of Excalibur for JDBC pooling. > >> > >> I don't see the point of pooling if you are testing JDBC; it then > >> becomes as much a test of the pool rather than JDBC. > >> > > Don't understand this > > > >> > >> If we do want to support pooling, it should be selectable. > >> However I don't know if there is a standard Pooling API, so that might > >> not be possible. > >> > >> Why not use commons-dbcp or tomcat-pool for this ? > > See separate thread. > > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> Regards > >> >> > >> >> Philippe > >> >> // Copying dialog from another thread: > >> >> > >> >> Philippe says > >> >> >> As we are now in these big changes (static final, interface > cleanup > >> ... > >> >> ) > >> >> >> Sebb, milamber is it ok for you if I start migration to > >> commons-logging > >> >> ? > >> >> >> > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> Milamber says: > >> >> > Why commons-loggings (not updated since 2008)? > >> >> > >> >> Sebb says: > >> >> AIUI it's not been updated since it works; there has been no need to > >> update > >> >> it. > >> >> > >> >> > Log4J ? > >> >> > >> >> > or directly java.util.logging.*? > >> >> > >> >> That's broken, according to what I read. > >> >> > >> >> On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 1:39 PM, Philippe Mouawad < > >> >> philippe.moua...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> >> > >> >> > Hello Sebb, > >> >> > My responses below. > >> >> > Regards > >> >> > Philippe > >> >> > > >> >> > On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 1:02 PM, sebb <seb...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> >> > > >> >> >> On 23 January 2012 06:49, Philippe Mouawad < > >> philippe.moua...@gmail.com> > >> >> >> wrote: > >> >> >> > Regarding logging, > >> >> >> > It CAN Go fast if we share work and each of us takes one SRC > >> folder. > >> >> >> > It's à matter f search replace for 90%. > >> >> >> > >> >> >> It's still the same amount of work, no matter how many people do > it. > >> >> >> [Possibly more, if you allow for co-ordination overheads] > >> >> >> > >> >> >> Generally it's the last 10% that takes all the effort. > >> >> >> > >> >> > => I agree , I volunteer to do it if you agree after release. > >> >> > > >> >> >> > >> >> >> Definitely not something to be started just before a release. > >> >> >> > >> >> >> => It was not my intention, it is just after the release. > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> >> Also, we would still need to keep the jars unless we rewrote > >> >> >> OldSaveService - or made it optional. > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > Regarding pool i am not sure to there is an datasourceelemnt > That > >> >> has à > >> >> >> > Maxpool property and looking at code it seemed the excalibur > >> >> datasource > >> >> >> > was using this property. > >> >> >> > Commons jdbc BasicDatasource was looking very close to it. > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > Regards > >> >> >> > Philippe > >> >> >> > On Monday, January 23, 2012, Anthony Johnson <ans...@gmail.com> > >> >> wrote: > >> >> >> >> On Sun, Jan 22, 2012 at 9:28 PM, sebb <seb...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> >> >> >>> On 23 January 2012 01:46, Anthony Johnson <ans...@gmail.com> > >> wrote: > >> >> >> >>>> On Sun, Jan 22, 2012 at 8:29 PM, sebb <seb...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> >> >> >>>>> > >> >> >> >>>>> On 22 January 2012 13:04, Philippe Mouawad < > >> >> >> philippe.moua...@gmail.com> > -- Cordialement. Philippe Mouawad.
