My take would be to drop the seqNo and threadID integer, and for level, check if its a built-in JUL level which can be translated to a built-in log4j level. If it's not a built-in JUL level we can do a log4j Level.forName() call to create that custom level in log4j as well. Thoughts?
Sent from my iPhone > On 2014/09/10, at 11:07, Matt Sicker <[email protected]> wrote: > > I'm actually thinking of some sort of LogRecordMessage or similar which takes > a useful subset of LogRecord. > >> On 9 September 2014 21:01, Matt Sicker <[email protected]> wrote: >> I've got ranges in place to map to standard levels, but custom level support >> is currently done through the MDC. Should I use a MapMessage instead? Make a >> new Message type just for log4j-jul? There's metadata in some of these >> Logger methods that I'd like to include, but if the MDC isn't the best way >> to do that, then I'd prefer another way. I noticed that pax-logging does >> this for every log event to include some metadata about the OSGi bundle that >> made the log call, so I kept up the style. >> >> As to the static field, yes, I noticed that, too. It's only for a sequence >> number, and we have our own (better) way of doing that with on-demand >> sequencing (and using the AtomicXxx classes indeed) anyways. >> >>> On 9 September 2014 20:39, Remko Popma <[email protected]> wrote: >>> Fro a performance point of view, it would be great if we could avoid >>> creating LogRecord instances. Not just from a GC perspective, but in java6 >>> the LogRecord constructor synchronizes on a static variable(!): big >>> bottleneck. This is improved (using AtomicXxx) in java7. >>> >>> Also would great if we can avoid using the ThreadContext MDC for every log >>> event. (Its copy-on-write design is not a good match for this usage...) >>> >>> Would there be a way to map custom JUL log levels to custom Log4j levels? >>> >>> Sent from my iPhone >>> >>>> On 2014/09/10, at 10:20, Matt Sicker <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>> Actually, now that I look at it, I can just use an inner class with >>>> ExtendedLoggerWrapper to get at those protected methods I mentioned. I >>>> mean, that appears to be the point of it! Let me see if it does everything >>>> I needed. >>>> >>>>> On 9 September 2014 20:08, Matt Sicker <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>> Now that I'm looking at this, what's the point of all the methods that >>>>> take a FQCN instead of having just the ones in ExtendedLogger? I'm not >>>>> sure why we didn't just use a field in AbstractLogger in the first place. >>>>> >>>>>> On 9 September 2014 19:14, Matt Sicker <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>> I'm making some changes to log4j-jul to reduce redundant time spent >>>>>> constructing a LogRecord that I don't even want to use most of the time. >>>>>> However, the ExtendedLogger interface (which I need to use at the very >>>>>> least so that I can set the fqcn to java.util.logging.Logger) only >>>>>> provides a single version of logMessage (unlike AbstractLogger which has >>>>>> a bunch), and several methods like catching(), throwing(), etc., all >>>>>> depend on protected methods in AbstractLogger that I'd rather not >>>>>> re-implement. It would be nice if I could just call the Logger methods I >>>>>> need, but they all get called with the wrong fqcn. >>>>>> >>>>>> Can we use a non-static final field that contains the fqcn? If I could, >>>>>> I'd extend AbstractLogger myself, but I already have to extend the JUL >>>>>> Logger class (should have been an interface, grrr). Thus, I can't rely >>>>>> on AbstractLogger being the source of all these method calls. Unlike the >>>>>> other adapters, JUL provides more various logger calls than we even >>>>>> have, and I don't think ExtendedLogger was written with this scenario in >>>>>> mind. >>>>>> >>>>>> I don't think this should be too large an impact of a change. I'm going >>>>>> to push up a proposal, but feel free to veto it or offer some >>>>>> suggestions! >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> Matt Sicker <[email protected]> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> Matt Sicker <[email protected]> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Matt Sicker <[email protected]> >> >> >> >> -- >> Matt Sicker <[email protected]> > > > > -- > Matt Sicker <[email protected]>
