Couldn't we no-op instead of throw if the same identical level were
registered?
If those levels were then added to the same custom level class from the
config, could we use that single class in the logger calls?
On Jan 26, 2014 5:15 PM, "Ralph Goers" <ralph.go...@dslextreme.com> wrote:
> I am certain I could create a LevelPlugin that would allow you to define
> one or more Levels in the configuration, but to use that Level the user
> would have to code:
>
> logger.log(Level.toLevel("DIAG"), "hello world");
>
> In order to directly reference the level it has to be declared as a static
> from somewhere and it can only be instantiated a single time, so creating
> it from the configuration will prevent that.
>
> Ralph
>
> On Jan 26, 2014, at 4:03 PM, Scott Deboy <scott.de...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I have one goal: to remove my request for new built in levels by allowing
> the levels to be defined strictly via configuration. I agree there may be
> some hurdles but that's my goal.
>
> I'd like to avoid the requirement that users provide their own level
> implementation or use a different API.
>
> Scott
> On Jan 26, 2014 3:52 PM, "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
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
