All this discussion is reminding my why I decided not to take on the JUL bridge in the first place ;-) I have often wondered how this JSR got approved.
Ralph On Sep 9, 2014, at 8:21 PM, Matt Sicker <[email protected]> wrote: > There's actually a bit of an interesting challenge in converting from a > custom level in JUL to Log4j. JUL allows you to use any integer value > possible (not just non-negative ones). Also, their progression of level > values goes in reverse of ours. Thus, any level above 1000 (Level.SEVERE in > JUL) would need to be squeezed into the range of 1 to 99! Plus, > Integer.MAX_VALUE indicates StandardLevel.ALL, but Level.OFF in JUL. Then > there'd be the other way around, too. > > As to those fields, I think we can probably drop them. LogRecord dynamically > calculates them from the Throwable stacktrace if necessary. We do it faster. > > On 9 September 2014 22:07, Matt Sicker <[email protected]> wrote: > What about the logp, entering, exiting, and throwing methods which all take a > source class name and a source method name? Just ignore them? > > On 9 September 2014 21:40, Remko Popma <[email protected]> wrote: > 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]> > > > > -- > Matt Sicker <[email protected]> > > > > -- > Matt Sicker <[email protected]>
