Cool, thx for reviewing so quickly. Jean louis Le 16 juil. 2012 20:16, "Mark Struberg" <strub...@yahoo.de> a écrit :
> patch looks fine! > > LieGrue, > strub > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: Romain Manni-Bucau <rmannibu...@gmail.com> > > To: dev@openwebbeans.apache.org; Mark Struberg <strub...@yahoo.de> > > Cc: > > Sent: Monday, July 16, 2012 11:03 AM > > Subject: Re: new logger api? > > > > Hi, > > > > hope will be fine since we discussed of it together ;) > > > > > > the only interrogation point is about webbeansloggerfacade which could be > > split with a messageutil class but for me that's mainly fine :) > > > > - Romain > > > > > > 2012/7/16 Mark Struberg <strub...@yahoo.de> > > > >> Hi! > >> > >> Thanks folks! > >> Will review it this afternoon. > >> > >> LieGrue, > >> strub > >> > >> > >> > >> ----- Original Message ----- > >> > From: Jean-Louis MONTEIRO <jeano...@gmail.com> > >> > To: dev@openwebbeans.apache.org > >> > Cc: > >> > Sent: Monday, July 16, 2012 9:59 AM > >> > Subject: Re: new logger api? > >> > > >> > Hi devs, > >> > > >> > As discussed, just submitted the patch file to change the Logger API > > over > >> > the project. > >> > It now contains a factory with a default implementation based on JUL. > >> > > >> > If someone can review it, that'd be great cause a lot of file > > changed so > >> > the sooner, the better to merge/integrate. > >> > > >> > Hope it help, > >> > Jean-Louis > >> > > >> > 2012/6/25 Romain Manni-Bucau <rmannibu...@gmail.com> > >> > > >> >> mainly what was done in the patch of > >> >> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OWB-674 (maybe a bit too > > much > >> but > >> >> was > >> >> done ;)) > >> >> > >> >> - Romain > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> 2012/6/25 Jean-Louis MONTEIRO <jeano...@gmail.com> > >> >> > >> >> > I guess a new thread must be opened with [VOTE]. > >> >> > Anyway, if we wanna support other logging API, may be we > > could just > >> >> review > >> >> > the factory. > >> >> > > >> >> > Thoughts? > >> >> > > >> >> > JLouis > >> >> > > >> >> > 2012/6/25 Romain Manni-Bucau <rmannibu...@gmail.com> > >> >> > > >> >> > > I think questions are: > >> >> > > 1) do we remove WebBeansLogger? --> JUL > >> >> > > 2) do we add a thin layer to allow to use other logging > > API? (add > >> > or > >> >> > reuse > >> >> > > if we go for slf4j for instance) > >> >> > > > >> >> > > - Romain > >> >> > > > >> >> > > > >> >> > > 2012/6/25 Mark Struberg <strub...@yahoo.de> > >> >> > > > >> >> > > > full ack, yeaaa we found a volunteer - txs romain > > :D > >> >> > > > > >> >> > > > > >> >> > > > Nah, serious. We should do a VOTE about whether to > > remove > >> > the > >> >> > > > WebBeansLogger or not. > >> >> > > > > >> >> > > > LieGrue, > >> >> > > > strub > >> >> > > > > >> >> > > > > >> >> > > > > >> >> > > > ----- Original Message ----- > >> >> > > > > From: Jean-Louis MONTEIRO > > <jeano...@gmail.com> > >> >> > > > > To: dev@openwebbeans.apache.org > >> >> > > > > Cc: > >> >> > > > > Sent: Monday, June 25, 2012 10:46 AM > >> >> > > > > Subject: Re: new logger api? > >> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > Mark, > >> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > That be a good starting point for me to > > submit a patch > >> > if you > >> >> agree. > >> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > Jean-Louis > >> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > 2012/6/25 Romain Manni-Bucau > >> > <rmannibu...@gmail.com> > >> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > >> Or friends ;) > >> >> > > > >> Le 25 juin 2012 08:26, "Jean-Louis > >> > MONTEIRO" > >> >> > > > > <jeano...@gmail.com> a écrit > >> >> > > > >> : > >> >> > > > >> > >> >> > > > >> > You still have nights ;-) > >> >> > > > >> > > >> >> > > > >> > > >> >> > > > >> > Was a joke, sorry. > >> >> > > > >> > JLouis > >> >> > > > >> > > >> >> > > > >> > 2012/6/25 Mark Struberg > >> > <strub...@yahoo.de> > >> >> > > > >> > > >> >> > > > >> > > gimme a few days plz, > > currently holding > >> > workshops the next 2 > >> >> > > > > days. > >> >> > > > >> > > > >> >> > > > >> > > LieGrue, > >> >> > > > >> > > strub > >> >> > > > >> > > > >> >> > > > >> > > > >> >> > > > >> > > > >> >> > > > >> > > ----- Original Message ----- > >> >> > > > >> > > > From: Jean-Louis MONTEIRO > >> > <jeano...@gmail.com> > >> >> > > > >> > > > To: > > dev@openwebbeans.apache.org > >> >> > > > >> > > > Cc: > >> >> > > > >> > > > Sent: Monday, June 25, > > 2012 8:15 AM > >> >> > > > >> > > > Subject: Re: new logger > > api? > >> >> > > > >> > > > > >> >> > > > >> > > > Yes, that will make > > things simpler > >> > to integrate ;-) > >> >> > > > >> > > > > >> >> > > > >> > > > JLouis > >> >> > > > >> > > > > >> >> > > > >> > > > 2012/6/25 Romain > > Manni-Bucau > >> > <rmannibu...@gmail.com> > >> >> > > > >> > > > > >> >> > > > >> > > >> any other opinion? > >> >> > > > >> > > >> > >> >> > > > >> > > >> do we move to JULI > > directly? > >> >> > > > >> > > >> > >> >> > > > >> > > >> - Romain > >> >> > > > >> > > >> > >> >> > > > >> > > >> > >> >> > > > >> > > >> 2012/6/11 Romain > > Manni-Bucau > >> >> > > > > <rmannibu...@gmail.com> > >> >> > > > >> > > >> > >> >> > > > >> > > >> > no: > >> >> > > > >> > > >> > > >> >> > > > >> > > >> > private void > > wblLog(Level > >> > level, String > >> >> > > > > messageKey) > >> >> > > > >> > > >> > { > >> >> > > > >> > > >> > if > >> > (logger.isLoggable(level)) > >> >> > > > >> > > >> > { > >> >> > > > >> > > >> > > >> > logger.logp(level, caller.getName(), > >> >> > > > >> > > >> > > >> >> > > > > > >> > Thread.currentThread().getStackTrace()[3].getMethodName(), > >> >> > > > >> > > > messageKey); > >> >> > > > >> > > >> > } > >> >> > > > >> > > >> > } > >> >> > > > >> > > >> > > >> >> > > > >> > > >> > well if we move > > to natve > >> > JUL we'll need to > >> >> > > > > keep a factory to > >> >> > > > >> allow > >> >> > > > >> > > >> > subclasses to > > switch of > >> > implementation as cxf > >> >> > > > > does. > >> >> > > > >> > > >> > > >> >> > > > >> > > >> > - Romain > >> >> > > > >> > > >> > > >> >> > > > >> > > >> > > >> >> > > > >> > > >> > > >> >> > > > >> > > >> > 2012/6/11 Mark > > Struberg > >> > <strub...@yahoo.de> > >> >> > > > >> > > >> > > >> >> > > > >> > > >> >> +1 > >> >> > > > >> > > >> >> > >> >> > > > >> > > >> >> The > > getStackTrace > >> > only hits us if we throw an > >> >> > > > > Exception, right? > >> >> > > > >> > > > The > >> >> > > > >> > > >> >> problem is > > that due > >> > to the additional wrapper > >> >> > > > > handler we always > >> >> > > > >> > > > have a > >> >> > > > >> > > >> >> > > 'mismatch' in > >> > the StackTrace... > >> >> > > > >> > > >> >> > >> >> > > > >> > > >> >> I'm > > tempted to > >> > move to native jul > >> >> > > > > anyway... > >> >> > > > >> > > >> >> > >> >> > > > >> > > >> >> > >> >> > > > >> > > >> >> LieGrue, > >> >> > > > >> > > >> >> strub > >> >> > > > >> > > >> >> > >> >> > > > >> > > >> >> > >> >> > > > >> > > >> >> > >> >> > > > >> > > >> >> ----- > > Original > >> > Message ----- > >> >> > > > >> > > >> >> > From: > > Romain > >> > Manni-Bucau > >> >> > > > > <rmannibu...@gmail.com> > >> >> > > > >> > > >> >> > To: > >> > dev@openwebbeans.apache.org > >> >> > > > >> > > >> >> > Cc: > >> >> > > > >> > > >> >> > Sent: > > Monday, > >> > June 11, 2012 1:28 PM > >> >> > > > >> > > >> >> > > > Subject: new > >> > logger api? > >> >> > > > >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > > > >> > > >> >> > Hi, > >> >> > > > >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > > > >> > > >> >> > just > > created > >> >> > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OWB-674 > >> >> > > > >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > > > >> > > >> >> > any > > thought > >> > about it? > >> >> > > > >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > > > >> > > >> >> > the > > goal is > >> > mainly to allow to use > >> >> > > > > something else than JUL. > >> >> > > > >> > > > The > >> >> > > > >> > > >> proposed > >> >> > > > >> > > >> >> > patch > > uses a > >> > system property but it can > >> >> > > > > be something else. > >> >> > > > >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > > > >> > > >> >> > The > > other topic > >> > of this jira is the usage > >> >> > > > > of getStackTrace() > >> >> > > > >> > > > in the > >> >> > > > >> > > >> JUL > >> >> > > > >> > > >> >> > > > implementation > >> > which is too costly IMO. > >> >> > > > >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > > > >> > > >> >> > - > > Romain > >> >> > > > >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > > > >> > > >> >> > >> >> > > > >> > > >> > > >> >> > > > >> > > >> > > >> >> > > > >> > > >> > >> >> > > > >> > > > > >> >> > > > >> > > > >> >> > > > >> > > >> >> > > > >> > >> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > >> >> > > > >> >> > > >> >> > >> > > >> > > >
