If the explicit values of the enum aren't used, then the logger methods
that take a level would still work just fine. That's with the funky <T
extends Enum<T> & Level> generic, too, right?
On 26 January 2014 18:14, Ralph Goers <ralph.go...@dslextreme.com> wrote:
> Oh, actually I used an Interface for Level and an enum for the standard
> levels, so I didn’t try what you are suggesting. I don’t see how what you
> are proposing would work since all the Logger methods take a Level. If
> Level is an enum then only the values defined in it can be used, regardless
> of whatever interface it might implement.
>
> Ralph
>
> On Jan 26, 2014, at 4:10 PM, Ralph Goers <ralph.go...@dslextreme.com>
> wrote:
>
> My first implementation used a real enum that implemented a Level
> interface. I have to agree with Nick that what is currently committed is
> simpler.
>
> Ralph
>
> On Jan 26, 2014, at 4:00 PM, Matt Sicker <boa...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Don't annotation processing plugins work well in IDEs? Either way, there's
> a maven plugin already available for doing that, and javac has some sort of
> support for it already.
>
> Also, I'm still advocating for using a real enum for Level while providing
> a Level interface for all the relevant methods.
>
> And can't getCustomLogger also provide a default method that uses the
> getClassName method?
>
>
> On 26 January 2014 17:51, Nick Williams <nicho...@nicholaswilliams.net>wrote:
>
>> Generating a logger /interface/ is going to be hard. Sure, writing the
>> code automatically will be a piece of cake. But then what do we do with
>> that code? The user needs to program against it. So we have to have a
>> command-line utility or Maven/Ant plug-in to generate the source
>> pre-compile. However, since the vast majority of users are using IDEs,
>> those IDEs will still warn them about the interface not existing until they
>> have run the utility to generate the source.
>>
>> I think a better approach would be to allow the user to define an
>> interface that /must/ extend Logger. That interface may contain any methods
>> that match the following signatures (the interface must have at least one
>> method and there is no limit to the number of methods it may have):
>>
>> void(Marker, Message)
>> void(Marker, Message, Throwable t)
>> void(Marker, Object)
>> void(Marker, Object, Throwable t)
>> void(Marker, String)
>> void(Marker, String, Object...)
>> void(Marker, String throwable)
>> void(Message)
>> void(Message, Throwable t)
>> void(Object)
>> void(Object, Throwable t)
>> void(String)
>> void(String, Object...)
>> void(String throwable)
>>
>> Each method /must/ be annotated with @LoggingLevel(name = "levelName").
>> Now LogManager has a few new methods:
>>
>> <T extends Logger> T getCustomLogger(Class<T> loggerClass)
>> <T extends Logger> T getCustomLogger(Class<T> loggerClass, Class<?>)
>> <T extends Logger> T getCustomLogger(Class<T> loggerClass, Class<?>,
>> MessageFactory)
>> <T extends Logger> T getCustomLogger(Class<T> loggerClass, MessageFactory)
>> <T extends Logger> T getCustomLogger(Class<T> loggerClass, Object)
>> <T extends Logger> T getCustomLogger(Class<T> loggerClass, Object,
>> MessageFactory)
>> <T extends Logger> T getCustomLogger(Class<T> loggerClass, String)
>> <T extends Logger> T getCustomLogger(Class<T> loggerClass, String,
>> MessageFactory)
>>
>> The user can then obtain such a logger like so, etc.:
>>
>> MyLogger logger = LogManager.getCustomLogger(MyLogger.class);
>>
>> Log4j will generate an implementation of MyLogger that extends the
>> default implementation, cache that implementation so that it doesn't have
>> to be implemented again, and then instantiate/cache the logger instance
>> like normal.
>>
>> Make sense?
>>
>> N
>>
>> On Jan 26, 2014, at 5:32 PM, Scott Deboy wrote:
>>
>> Yes that's what I was thinking.
>>
>> Scott
>> On Jan 26, 2014 3:18 PM, "Remko Popma" <remko.po...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Scott,
>>> The way I interpreted Gary's idea was that based on user-specified
>>> custom levels, we would generate an extension of the Logger interface that
>>> has a method for each of the custom levels (well, actually 14 methods for
>>> each level :-) ).
>>> I haven't really thought about how users would specify their custom
>>> levels, as long as the tool can know what methods to generate.
>>>
>>> We could go one step further and generate the Level subclass from
>>> configuration as well. I suppose that would entail adding a new <Levels>
>>> element, with sub-elements like <Level name="DETAIL" intLevel="450" />...
>>> Is that what you are thinking of?
>>>
>>> I would be fine with that too, but would like to first focus on
>>> generating the extended Logger interface.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 5:29 AM, Scott Deboy <scott.de...@gmail.com>wrote:
>>>
>>>> Is there a way to generate code/update the Levels enumeration so a new
>>>> Level class isn't required?
>>>>
>>>> Would be great to be able to use logger.detail("Detail message");
>>>>
>>>> Is that what you're thinking of, Remko?
>>>>
>>>> On 1/26/14, Ralph Goers <ralph.go...@dslextreme.com> wrote:
>>>> > I haven’t done anything to directly do that. However, custom levels
>>>> need to
>>>> > be mapped to the standard levels in several places. It would be
>>>> simple to
>>>> > add support for that wherever you want it.
>>>> Level.StdLevel.getStdLevel() is
>>>> > the method used to do that.
>>>> >
>>>> > Ralph
>>>> >
>>>> > On Jan 26, 2014, at 7:45 AM, Scott Deboy <scott.de...@gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>> >
>>>> >> Are these serialization-wise going to be the same as standard levels?
>>>> >>
>>>> >> Receivers and apps like Chainsaw would benefit from not requiring the
>>>> >> originating level class be included in the classpath.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> I'm thinking about socketreceiver and to a lesser extent
>>>> >> logfilepatternreceiver.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> Scott
>>>> >> On Jan 26, 2014 7:28 AM, "Scott Deboy" <scott.de...@gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>> >> So I assume we could build on this by adding the ability to generate
>>>> these
>>>> >> custom levels from the config, with no user provided class required?
>>>> >>
>>>> >>
>>>> >>
>>>> >> On Jan 26, 2014 12:58 AM, "Ralph Goers" <ralph.go...@dslextreme.com>
>>>> >> wrote:
>>>> >> >
>>>> >> > I have completed the work on custom levels. It uses a variation of
>>>> >> > Nick’s “extensible enum” class. The major difference with what he
>>>> >> > proposed is that the custom enums must be declared in a class
>>>> annotated
>>>> >> > with @Plugin(name=“xxxx” category=“Level”) for them to be usable
>>>> during
>>>> >> > configuration.
>>>> >> >
>>>> >> > Are their any objections to me checking this in? I’ll be doing the
>>>> >> > commit at around noon Pacific Daylight Time if I don’t hear any.
>>>> >> >
>>>> >> > Ralph
>>>> >> >
>>>> >> >
>>>> >> >
>>>> >> > On Jan 25, 2014, at 7:08 AM, Ralph Goers <
>>>> ralph.go...@dslextreme.com>
>>>> >> > 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
>>>> >> >>>>
>>>> >> >>>>>
>>>> >> >>>>> The extensible enum solution satisfies all of us who are
>>>> opposed to
>>>> >> >>>>> adding pre-defined levels, while also satisfying the original
>>>> >> >>>>> requirement raised by Nick and yourself. Frankly I don't
>>>> understand
>>>> >> >>>>> why you would still want the pre-defined levels.
>>>> >> >>>>>
>>>> >> >>>>> Remko
>>>> >> >>>>>
>>>> >> >>>>>
>>>> >> >>>>>
>>>> >> >>>>> On Sat, Jan 25, 2014 at 12:53 AM, Gary Gregory
>>>> >> >>>>> <garydgreg...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> >> >>>>>>
>>>> >> >>>>>> On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 10:45 PM, Remko Popma
>>>> >> >>>>>> <remko.po...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> >> >>>>>>>
>>>> >> >>>>>>> Gary,
>>>> >> >>>>>>>
>>>> >> >>>>>>> I think that's a very cool idea!
>>>> >> >>>>>>> Much more flexible, powerful and elegant than pre-defined
>>>> levels
>>>> >> >>>>>>> could ever be.
>>>> >> >>>>>>
>>>> >> >>>>>>
>>>> >> >>>>>> As I wrote: "I am discussing custom levels here with the
>>>> >> >>>>>> understanding that this is a separate topic from what the
>>>> built-in
>>>> >> >>>>>> levels are."
>>>> >> >>>>>>
>>>> >> >>>>>> I'm not sure why you want to make the features mutually
>>>> exclusive.
>>>> >> >>>>>> (Some) others agree that these are different features.
>>>> >> >>>>>>
>>>> >> >>>>>> I see two topics:
>>>> >> >>>>>>
>>>> >> >>>>>> - What are the default levels for a 21st century logging
>>>> framework.
>>>> >> >>>>>> Do we simply blindly copy Log4j 1? Or do we look at
>>>> frameworks from
>>>> >> >>>>>> different languages and platforms for inspiration?
>>>> >> >>>>>> - How (not if, I think we all agree) should we allow for
>>>> custom
>>>> >> >>>>>> levels.
>>>> >> >>>>>>
>>>> >> >>>>>> Gary
>>>> >> >>>>>>
>>>> >> >>>>>>> It definitely makes sense to design the extensible enum with
>>>> this
>>>> >> >>>>>>> potential usage in mind.
>>>> >> >>>>>>>
>>>> >> >>>>>>> Remko
>>>> >> >>>>>>>
>>>> >> >>>>>>>
>>>> >> >>>>>>> On Friday, January 24, 2014, Gary Gregory <
>>>> garydgreg...@gmail.com>
>>>> >> >>>>>>> wrote:
>>>> >> >>>>>>>>
>>>> >> >>>>>>>> I am discussing custom levels here with the understanding
>>>> that
>>>> >> >>>>>>>> this is a separate topic from what the built-in levels are.
>>>> Here
>>>> >> >>>>>>>> is how I convinced myself that custom levels are a “good
>>>> thing”.
>>>> >> >>>>>>>>
>>>> >> >>>>>>>> No matter which built-in levels exits, I may want custom
>>>> levels.
>>>> >> >>>>>>>> For example, I want my app to use the following levels
>>>> DEFCON1,
>>>> >> >>>>>>>> DEFCON2, DEFCON3, DEFCON4, and DEFCON5. This might be for
>>>> one
>>>> >> >>>>>>>> part of my app or a whole subsystem, no matter, I want to
>>>> use the
>>>> >> >>>>>>>> built-in levels in addition to the DEFCON levels. It is
>>>> worth
>>>> >> >>>>>>>> mentioning that if I want that feature only as a user, I can
>>>> >> >>>>>>>> “skin” levels in a layout and assign any label to the
>>>> built-in
>>>> >> >>>>>>>> levels. If I am also a developer, I want to use DEFCON
>>>> levels in
>>>> >> >>>>>>>> the source code.
>>>> >> >>>>>>>>
>>>> >> >>>>>>>>
>>>> >> >>>>>>>> At first, my code might look like:
>>>> >> >>>>>>>>
>>>> >> >>>>>>>>
>>>> >> >>>>>>>> logger.log(DefconLevels.DEFCON5, “All is quiet”);
>>>> >> >>>>>>>>
>>>> >> >>>>>>>>
>>>> >> >>>>>>>> Let’s put aside for now the type of DefconLevels.DEFCON*
>>>> objects.
>>>> >> >>>>>>>> I am a user, and I care about my call sites.
>>>> >> >>>>>>>>
>>>> >> >>>>>>>>
>>>> >> >>>>>>>> What I really want of course is to write:
>>>> >> >>>>>>>>
>>>> >> >>>>>>>>
>>>> >> >>>>>>>> defconLogger.defcon5(“All is quiet”)
>>>> >> >>>>>>>>
>>>> >> >>>>>>>>
>>>> >> >>>>>>>> Therefore, I argue that for any “serious” use of a custom
>>>> level,
>>>> >> >>>>>>>> I will wrap a Logger in a custom logger class providing
>>>> call-site
>>>> >> >>>>>>>> friendly methods like defcon5(String).
>>>> >> >>>>>>>>
>>>> >> >>>>>>>>
>>>> >> >>>>>>>> So now, as a developer, all I care about is DefConLogger. It
>>>> >> >>>>>>>> might wrap (or subclass) the Log4J Logger, who knows. The
>>>> >> >>>>>>>> implementation of DefConLogger is not important to the
>>>> developer
>>>> >> >>>>>>>> (all I care is that the class has ‘defconN’ method) but it
>>>> is
>>>> >> >>>>>>>> important to the configuration author. This tells me that
>>>> as a
>>>> >> >>>>>>>> developer I do not care how DefConLogger is implemented,
>>>> with
>>>> >> >>>>>>>> custom levels, markers, or elves. However, as configuration
>>>> >> >>>>>>>> author, I also want to use DEFCON level just like the
>>>> built-in
>>>> >> >>>>>>>> levels.
>>>> >> >>>>>>>>
>>>> >> >>>>>>>>
>>>> >> >>>>>>>> The configuration code co
>>>> >> >>>>
>>>> >> >>>>
>>>> >> >>>>
>>>> >> >>>>
>>>> >> >>>> --
>>>> >> >>>> E-Mail: garydgreg...@gmail.com | ggreg...@apache.org
>>>> >> >>>> Java Persistence with Hibernate, Second Edition
>>>> >> >>>> JUnit in Action, Second Edition
>>>> >> >>>> Spring Batch in Action
>>>> >> >>>> Blog: http://garygregory.wordpress.com
>>>> >> >>>> Home: http://garygregory.com/
>>>> >> >>>> Tweet! http://twitter.com/GaryGregory
>>>> >> >>
>>>> >> >>
>>>> >> >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>>
>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: log4j-dev-unsubscr...@logging.apache.org
>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: log4j-dev-h...@logging.apache.org
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Matt Sicker <boa...@gmail.com>
>
>
>
>
--
Matt Sicker <boa...@gmail.com>
