Matt did a very nice job here. I'm looking forward to the performance test results for the various logging APIs with the log4j-core impl. I am convinced that on Java 6, JUL API + log4j-core will run circles around JUL API + JDK impl in multi-threaded scenarios, because JDK6 still has a synchronized block in the critical path. Java 7 has better concurrency, so that is a more exciting comparison.
I'm aiming to publish these performance test results together with other performance tests (MemoryMappedFile Appender, binary logging) in the 2.2 release. On Sat, Sep 27, 2014 at 10:36 PM, Gary Gregory <[email protected]> wrote: > Awesome, thanks for the clarification. > > Gary > > On Sat, Sep 27, 2014 at 9:25 AM, Remko Popma <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> AFAIKS, there is nothing outstanding here. >> >> The way it works is, >> 1. built-in levels are fully mapped. The mapping is pluggable, so users >> can switch to a different mapping if desired. >> 2. custom JUL levels are supported, but users should provide their own >> LevelConverter in that case. We currently do not attempt to automatically >> map custom JUL levels to Log4j levels. >> >> All of this is fully documented in the JUL Adapter component docs. >> >> >> On Sat, Sep 27, 2014 at 9:43 PM, Gary Gregory <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >>> Ping. >>> >>> Gary >>> >>> On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 8:29 AM, Gary Gregory <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> Where are we on this? >>>> >>>> Gary >>>> >>>> On Wed, Sep 10, 2014 at 1:48 AM, Remko Popma <[email protected]> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Without actually experimenting, I was thinking it might be difficult >>>>> to make the full auto solution robust in all scenarios, so having an >>>>> interface where users can completely determine their own mapping (option >>>>> #2) is probably very nice to have. >>>>> >>>>> Option #3 may be ideal (but the level mapper still needs to deal with >>>>> the exceptional case where the code uses a custom level that is not >>>>> defined >>>>> in the config.) >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Wednesday, September 10, 2014, Matt Sicker <[email protected]> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> So far, I've implemented choice #2 to some extent. >>>>>> >>>>>> On 9 September 2014 23:47, Ralph Goers <[email protected]> >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> If I was implementing this I would take a custom JUL level and map >>>>>>> it to the appropriate predefined JUL level. That would then map to a >>>>>>> Log4j >>>>>>> level. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Ralph >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Sep 9, 2014, at 9:19 PM, Remko Popma <[email protected]> >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Wednesday, September 10, 2014, 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. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Darn! That makes things tricky indeed... >>>>>>> Just throwing out some thoughts: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 1. Full auto: We could have some mapping logic that converts the >>>>>>> custom JUL int level to a log4j int that is between the mapped built-in >>>>>>> levels. (TBD: how to avoid collisions if multiple custom levels are >>>>>>> defined >>>>>>> between built-in levels?) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 2. Semi-auto: we define an interface that converts JUL levels to >>>>>>> Log4j levels. We provide a default impl for the built-in levels. Users >>>>>>> need >>>>>>> to provide their own impl (or extend ours?) if they have custom JUL >>>>>>> levels. >>>>>>> (TBD: how does our default impl handle undefined custom JUL levels?) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 3. Config only: this depends on >>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LOG4J2-589 >>>>>>> Custom log4j levels are defined in configuration. The log4j config >>>>>>> file is loaded first, so the JUL bridge can convert custom levels using >>>>>>> the >>>>>>> name only. It can completely ignore the JUL int level. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 4. Easiest: we (initially) don't support custom JUL levels. Unknown >>>>>>> levels are converted to some ad hoc log4j level. Let's say, INFO, but we >>>>>>> can decide to use any level. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> 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. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Phew! >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> 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]> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> Matt Sicker <[email protected]> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> E-Mail: [email protected] | [email protected] >>>> Java Persistence with Hibernate, Second Edition >>>> <http://www.manning.com/bauer3/> >>>> JUnit in Action, Second Edition <http://www.manning.com/tahchiev/> >>>> Spring Batch in Action <http://www.manning.com/templier/> >>>> Blog: http://garygregory.wordpress.com >>>> Home: http://garygregory.com/ >>>> Tweet! http://twitter.com/GaryGregory >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> E-Mail: [email protected] | [email protected] >>> Java Persistence with Hibernate, Second Edition >>> <http://www.manning.com/bauer3/> >>> JUnit in Action, Second Edition <http://www.manning.com/tahchiev/> >>> Spring Batch in Action <http://www.manning.com/templier/> >>> Blog: http://garygregory.wordpress.com >>> Home: http://garygregory.com/ >>> Tweet! http://twitter.com/GaryGregory >>> >> >> > > > -- > E-Mail: [email protected] | [email protected] > Java Persistence with Hibernate, Second Edition > <http://www.manning.com/bauer3/> > JUnit in Action, Second Edition <http://www.manning.com/tahchiev/> > Spring Batch in Action <http://www.manning.com/templier/> > Blog: http://garygregory.wordpress.com > Home: http://garygregory.com/ > Tweet! http://twitter.com/GaryGregory >
