I've started to think about how to implement Gary's idea to use these custom levels to generate code that would add methods to the Logger interface, but I think I'll wait a little to see what form the custom levels take.
On Sun, Jan 26, 2014 at 11:45 AM, Remko Popma <[email protected]> wrote: > These are the switches I found: > * log4j-1.2-api: org.apache.log4j.Category - just FYI, it looks like this > switch is missing the FATAL level... is this a bug? > * log4j-api: org.apache.logging.log4j.status.StatusLogger > * log4j-core: org.apache.logging.log4j.core.net.Severity > * log4j-core: org.apache.logging.log4j.core.pattern.LevelPatternConverter > - perhaps just return "level " + level.toString(); ? > * log4j-to-slf4j: org.apache.logging.slf4j.SLF4JLogger > > > > On Sun, Jan 26, 2014 at 11:41 AM, Ralph Goers > <[email protected]>wrote: > >> I am not sure what you mean by this. I have already succeeded in adding >> custom level names to the configuration and making them be valid. I am >> just trying to clean it up a bit based on what Nick is suggesting. >> >> Ralph >> >> On Jan 25, 2014, at 6:30 PM, Scott Deboy <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> There's no way to add support for users to define level entries (name and >> value pairs as a new element in the config) and have us do the work to make >> those valid? That would get get rid of my request for additional levels, >> right? >> On Jan 25, 2014 6:15 PM, "Ralph Goers" <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >>> The class is needed because it is a name and a value (two items) that >>> has to be represented as a single parameter to Logger methods. Using raw >>> int or String is not a good alternative. >>> >>> Ralph >>> >>> On Jan 25, 2014, at 4:54 PM, Scott Deboy <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> If levels are just a name and a value why require a class at all? What >>> about just having it defined in the configuration. >>> On Jan 25, 2014 4:37 PM, "Ralph Goers" <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> Because we don’t know the class name that the Level belongs to. It is >>>> referenced in the configuration just as “DIAG”, not >>>> “org.apache.logging.test.ExtendedLevel.DIAG”. >>>> >>>> In any case I fixed it. I just annotated the new Level as a Plugin and >>>> then look up all the Level plugins in BaseConfiguration. Simply calling the >>>> getEnumConstants method on each of the classes does the trick. >>>> >>>> Ralph >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Jan 25, 2014, at 4:26 PM, Paul Benedict <[email protected]> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>> 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 < >>>> [email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> In the constructor each of them calls Levels.addLevel(this). >>>>> >>>>> Ralph >>>>> >>>>> On Jan 25, 2014, at 2:21 PM, Remko Popma <[email protected]> >>>>> 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 <[email protected]> >>>>> 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 < >>>>>> [email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> >>>>>> 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 < >>>>>> [email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> >>>>>> 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 <[email protected]> >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> On Fri, Jan 24, 2014 at 11:48 AM, Remko Popma >>>>>> <[email protected]>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 >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >> >
