I know we can't do what I would like via configuration. My point was to
primarily to spark discussion on how we could make the api as simple as
possible.
I'm ok with where we are on the custom level support.
I do think this brings us back around to adding built in levels, in a
separate thread.
I'm really pleased with how things are coming together. Good stuff.
Scott
On Jan 26, 2014 9:25 PM, "Nicholas Williams" <nicho...@nicholaswilliams.net>
wrote:
> Yes, I was saying that. But, unless I'm misunderstanding, Scott doesn't
> want the user to even have to write the interface. He wants them to just
> configure it and the interface become available "magically." I was pointing
> out that there's a disconnect between when the configuration is used
> (runtime) and when the user needs the interface (compile time).
>
> Unless we provide a code-generation tool for the user to run from the
> command line or from Ant/Maven/Gradle, they're going to have to write the
> interface themselves.
>
> Nick
>
> Sent from my iPhone, so please forgive brief replies and frequent typos
>
> On Jan 26, 2014, at 22:49, Remko Popma <remko.po...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Nick, I thought that you meant that users would provide their own
> interface, like this:
> public interface MyLogger extends Logger {
> @LoggingLevel(name="DIAG")
> void diag(String message);
> // optional other methods
> }
>
> That way, this interface exists at compile time.
>
> On Monday, January 27, 2014, Nicholas Williams <
> nicho...@nicholaswilliams.net> wrote:
>
>> Scott, invokedynamic and javassist...those are all /runtime/ things. The
>> user needs Logger#notice to be available at compile time. Those are not
>> compatible.
>>
>> Nick
>>
>> Sent from my iPhone, so please forgive brief replies and frequent typos
>>
>> > On Jan 26, 2014, at 22:37, Scott Deboy <scott.de...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > Yes, I would like to declare in the config:
>> >
>> > Level: NOTICE, value: 232
>> >
>> > And in Java code be able to use logger.notice("some message").
>> >
>> > But I think that'd require invokedynamic..which would probably
>> > require..javassist/ASM?
>> >
>> > I'd be ok with anything that's really close to that :)
>> >
>> > Scott
>> >
>> >
>> >> On 1/26/14, Ralph Goers <ralph.go...@dslextreme.com> wrote:
>> >> Scott would like users to add a level definition to the logging
>> >> configuration and have everything else happen auto-magically. That
>> would
>> >> happen at run-time which is a bit late since the methods need to be
>> >> available at compile time.
>> >>
>> >> I believe Scott said he would be fine if users had to do
>> >>
>> >> logger.log(SomeClass.SomeLevel, "message);
>> >>
>> >> but even that requires "SomeClass" to be available at compile time.
>> >>
>> >> So what Scott says he would like and what Nick is proposing are two
>> >> different things.
>> >>
>> >> Ralph
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>> On Jan 26, 2014, at 8:09 PM, Remko Popma <remko.po...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>> I actually thought that Nick's idea was the answer to that: users
>> create a
>> >>> custom interface, something like this:
>> >>>
>> >>> public interface MyLogger extends Logger {
>> >>> @LoggingLevel(name="DIAG")
>> >>> void diag(String message);
>> >>> // optional other methods
>> >>> }
>> >>>
>> >>> They get an instance of this interface by calling:
>> >>> LogManager.getCustomLogger(MyLogger.class);
>> >>>
>> >>> LogManager has access to the processed configuration. The config has
>> >>> <Levels><Level name="DIAG" intValue="450"> elements. During
>> configuration
>> >>> processing, the custom Level instances are created and registered, so
>> on
>> >>> the first call to LogManager.getCustomLogger(MyLogger.class), the
>> MyLogger
>> >>> instance is created and cached. Also, at this point the annotations
>> are
>> >>> parsed to see what Level instance the MyLogger implementation will
>> pass to
>> >>> the Logger.log(Level, String) method when the "diag" method is called.
>> >>>
>> >>> What is still open in this scenario is how the instance is created.
>> Proxy?
>> >>> Or generate source & compile? Or use a byte code library?
>> >>>
>> >>> On Monday, January 27, 2014, Ralph Goers <ralph.go...@dslextreme.com>
>> >>> wrote:
>> >>> I am going to have to echo what Nick said. If you can think of a way
>> to
>> >>> make
>> >>>
>> >>> logger.log(SomeClass.SomeLevel, "hello world");
>> >>>
>> >>> work without actually creating SomeClass then please share!
>> >>>
>> >>> Ralph
>> >>>
>> >>> On Jan 26, 2014, at 7:45 PM, Nick Williams <
>> nicho...@nicholaswilliams.net>
>> >>> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>>> It would not be possible to do this strictly through configuration
>> >>>> because the user needs a compiled interface to code against. Where is
>> >>>> that compiled interface to come from?
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Nick
>> >>>>
>> >>>>> On Jan 26, 2014, at 9:40 PM, Scott Deboy wrote:
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> If there is a way to support this strictly through configuration
>> that
>> >>>>> would be ideal.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> I'm trying to find a way to remove my request for additional built
>> in
>> >>>>> levels but through configuration instead of adding them ourselves.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Scott
>> >>>>> Scott
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> On Jan 26, 2014 7:38 PM, "Nick Williams" <
>
>
