At 04:16 PM 3/29/2007, you wrote:
>
>On 30/03/2007, at 1:11 AM, Jacob Kjome wrote:
>
>>
>> Hi Paul,
>>
>> Are logging domains akin to Markers in the SLF4J/Logback world?
>>
>
>I'm in dangerous territory here because I'm really unfamiliar with
>SLFJ and logback, but having a browse on the logback docs I think
>there is _some_ overlap, but I think Markers is taking the problem
>from the other side. If I read things correctly, Markers are a more
>finer grained and defined in the configuration files, whereas my
>initial Domain mashup is compile-time (at the moment). Markers is
>certainly very powerful. Annotations is just another way of grouping
>things together.
>
Let me see if I understand. Markers are more "fine grained" because
they are applied individually in each logger statement. For
instance, in SLF4J, you would say...
logger.debug(myMarker, "my message");
"myMarker" could be a different marker each time, or it could always
be the same. It's the possibility of being a different marker each
time that makes it different from domains, right (besides no
restriction on logger name with markers, as opposed to
domains)? Domains are defined once as an annotation for the
class. With markers, any number of domains might be used. Domains
provides more definition around the intended use while markers are
kind of open to interpretation. Of course domains don't affect the
Logger api at all while markers do.
Am I on track?
>I purely wanted to experiment with Annotations and JMX and see if
>there was a nice easier way to formulate the Domain concept in my own
>mind and perhaps get the conversation rolling with something
>concrete, and see if there was a mechanism by which it could
>integrate in a backward-compatible way to log4j 1.2.x (because
>there's a lot of that out there still).
>
The way you have implemented domains to be compatible with
Log4j-1.2.xx is certainly compelling. However, the future seems to
be markers. I wonder if it would be more helpful to simply call this
an implementation of markers where the usage is more prescribed and
makes it unnecessary to pass markers via the Logger API. In future
versions of Log4j, which might support markers (as, maybe, a result
of supporting the SLF4J API), additional markers may be supplied via
the Logger API in addition to those defined as annotations?
So, logging domains might simply be a specific prescribed usage of
markers, implemented in such a way that it removes the requirement
(though doesn't preclude the possibility) to pass markers along with
Logger statements. And as far as configuration goes, standard
support for configuring markers could apply equally to annotated
domain markers or individual markers passed via logging
statements. Configuration wouldn't need to care where the markers
came from or how they were intended to be used. It would all be
generic to configuration (assuming such configuration support was
built into Log4j at some future point in time).
Does this make sense? I haven't looked at the details of the
implementation or anything, so what I described might be way off of
what you have implemented. Do you see what I described as even
possible? Might logging domains be written to the SLF4J API so that
the concept could be used by any logging system supporting the
concept of Markers or does it have to be Log4j specific?
Jake
>Paul
>
>
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
