If you made it a requirement for the constructor to register, why not just
instantiate each level as you encounter it in the config?
On Sat, Jan 25, 2014 at 6:06 PM, Ralph Goers <ralph.go...@dslextreme.com>wrote:
> Hmm. It seems I am going to have to do something to force the registration
> as the custom level class hasn’t been constructed before the levels are
> referenced in the configuration.
>
> Ralph
>
> On Jan 25, 2014, at 3:43 PM, Ralph Goers <ralph.go...@dslextreme.com>
> wrote:
>
> In the constructor each of them calls Levels.addLevel(this).
>
> Ralph
>
> On Jan 25, 2014, at 2:21 PM, Remko Popma <remko.po...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Interesting! So, users would add custom levels by creating a new enum that
> implements the Level interface? How does the new enum get registered? In
> config or in code?
>
> Just trying to understand how it works...
>
> (With Nick's class I understood how that would work: users would extend
> the Level class and pass an instance of that class to the Logger.log()
> methods; in config they could specify the new Level name, and the
> Level.toLevel(String, Level) method would find the custom instance in a
> static HashMap in the Level superclass.)
>
> On Sunday, January 26, 2014, Ralph Goers <ralph.go...@dslextreme.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Here is what I am implementing:
>>
>> 1. Level is now an Interface. This allows the vast amount of code to
>> continue to work.
>> 2. The current Level enum has been renamed to StdLevel. It implements the
>> Level interface.
>> 3. A new class named Levels is in the spi package of the API. It contains
>> a ConcurrentMap containing all the registered Levels as well as the static
>> methods that were previously part of the Level enum.
>>
>> For the most part the conversion to this has been pretty easy. The most
>> frustrating part was that I had to move the toLevel methods from what was
>> the Level enum to the Levels class as static methods are not allowed in
>> interfaces until Java 8. This meant I had to modify several classes to use
>> Levels.toLevel instead of Level.toLevel. In addition, a few classes were
>> using the valueOf enum method. Those were converted to use Levels.getLevel.
>>
>> The few places were Level is actually used as an enum were also pretty
>> easy to handle as in those cases the custom levels need to be converted to
>> a StdLevel and then that enum is used.
>>
>> Unless anyone objects I plan on committing this later today once I finish
>> it and create some tests and documentation.
>>
>> Ralph
>>
>>
>>
>> On Jan 25, 2014, at 12:49 PM, Nicholas Williams <
>> nicho...@nicholaswilliams.net> wrote:
>>
>> No, of course, everyone seems to agree that custom levels should be
>> permitted. But I never heard agreement on whether we were going the
>> extensible enum route or the Level-as-interface route. The camp still
>> seemed to disagree on that.
>>
>> Nick
>>
>> Sent from my iPhone, so please forgive brief replies and frequent typos
>>
>> On Jan 25, 2014, at 11:20, Ralph Goers <ralph.go...@dslextreme.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> I have not heard anyone disagree with allowing custom Levels. The
>> disagreement I am hearing is over adding new pre-defined levels.
>>
>> Ralph
>>
>> On Jan 25, 2014, at 7:29 AM, Nick Williams <nicho...@nicholaswilliams.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>> I may have missed something. Did we decide on an approach? Last I heard,
>> the camp was still split: Some wanted to go with my extensible enum, others
>> wanted to change Level to an interface and make a Levels enum.
>>
>> So I'm a bit confused. Which implementation are you working on?
>>
>> Nick
>>
>> On Jan 25, 2014, at 7:08 AM, Ralph Goers wrote:
>>
>> I am working on the implementation of custom levels now. I should have
>> it done today.
>>
>> Ralph
>>
>> On Jan 24, 2014, at 7:07 PM, Remko Popma <remko.po...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> What is the best way to make progress on the custom levels implementation?
>>
>> Do we re-open LOG4J-41 or start a fresh Jira ticket? For implementation
>> ideas, do we attach files to Jira, or create a branch?
>>
>> Remko
>>
>> On Saturday, January 25, 2014, Gary Gregory <garydgreg...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, Jan 24, 2014 at 11:48 AM, Remko Popma <remko.po...@gmail.com>wrote:
>>
>> Gary,
>>
>> The hard-coded levels were proposed because it seemed that the extensible
>> enum idea raised by Nick was not going to be accepted.
>> My original position was that Markers could fulfill the requirement but
>> Nick and yourself made it clear that this was not satisfactory.
>>
>> With extensible enums and markers off the table it seemed that the
>> hard-coded levels was the only alternative, and discussion ensued about
>> what these levels should be called and what strength they should have.
>>
>> During this discussion, several people, including me, repeatedly
>> expressed strong reservations about adding pre-defined levels, but by this
>> time I think people were thinking there was no alternative.
>>
>> It looked like we were getting stuck, with half the group moving in one
>> direction ("add pre-defined levels!") and the other half wanting to move in
>> another direction ("don't add pre-defined levels!"). I asked that we
>> re-reviewed our assumptions and try to reach a solution that would satisfy
>> all users.
>>
>> We then decided to explore the option of using extensible enums again.
>> This is still ongoing, but I haven't seen anyone arguing against this idea
>> since we started this thread.
>>
>> Hard-coded levels and the extensible enum are different solutions to the
>> same problem.
>>
>>
>> Hello All:
>>
>> Absolutely not. See my DEFCON example.
>> Talking about an "extensible enum" is mixing design and implementation,
>> we are talking about 'custom' and/or 'extensible' levels.
>> Custom/Extensible levels can be designed to serve one or all of:
>>
>> - Allow inserting custom levels between built-in levels.
>> - Allow for domain specific levels outside of the concept of built-in
>> levels, the DEFCON example.
>> - Should the custom levels themselves be extensible?
>>
>> Gary
>>
>>
>>
>
>
--
Cheers,
Paul
