I documented the new properties in the Configuration manual page. Did I forget to commit that?
On Saturday, 20 February 2016, Remko Popma <[email protected]> wrote: > I initially used PropertiesUtil but this failed somehow. Since this is > used while initializing s class constant, the failure resulted in a > NoClassDefError... > So I reverted to System.getProperties. > I can take another look, or if someone else has time, please feel free to > replace this with PropertiesUtil. > > On Saturday, 20 February 2016, Ralph Goers <[email protected] > <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','[email protected]');>> wrote: > >> I should have qualified this to say that the log4j2.component.properties >> file is managed by the PropertiesUtil class. Properties should be access >> through its methods. >> >> Ralph >> >> On Feb 19, 2016, at 1:09 PM, Ralph Goers <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >> I see two new properties to allow users to override the default >> MessageFactory and FlowMessageFactory. It seems very unlikely they will >> ever get used, but they should NOT be calling System.getProperty() directly. >> >> Please remember that wherever adding something to the configuration won’t >> work you should access it through the log4j2.component.properties file. >> Values in that file can be overridden via system properties, but users can >> just create the properties file instead. In general, we should be >> leveraging that mechanism and not calling System.getProperty(). We also >> need to document each of these properties in a clear way. >> >> JAXB or Jackson isn’t going to make anything any easier. >> >> Ralph >> >> >> On Feb 19, 2016, at 12:20 PM, Gary Gregory <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >> >> On Fri, Feb 19, 2016 at 9:24 AM, Remko Popma <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> > >> > FlowMessageFactory is now extracted. I'm quite happy with the result. >> > Please take a look at https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LOG4J2-1255 >> for further follow-up. >> >> OK, that seems fine. Thank you for doing the work. >> >> The only thing I am not happy about is the use of system properties >> instead of the config file. >> >> We are perpetuating a mess here. >> >> What is the role of properties files vs a configuration file? Which one >> overrides the other? Are they mutually exclusive? >> >> I could see sys props set on a command line used to override all config >> files. Or the other way around? >> >> In the long run, the use of sys props is bad. Some users configure only >> via files saved and moved around machines. You can't do that with sys props. >> >> Please, let's not make it worse by adding MORE sys props. >> >> Is the real issue that it is too much of a PITA to update our config code >> for XML, JSON, and YAML to support a new setting? >> >> This tells me we're doing it wrong. I know we do not want to many deps, >> our current scheme is too hard to maintain. We could use JAXB or Jackson >> instead. >> >> Gary >> >> > >> > On Fri, Feb 19, 2016 at 2:40 PM, Remko Popma <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >> >> >> I see, so there actually is a use case to remove the need for the >> isTraceEnabled check with the Supplier param... >> >> >> >> Sent from my iPhone >> >> >> >> On 2016/02/19, at 14:10, Ralph Goers <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >> >> >>> The use case I wanted to do this for is: >> >>> >> >>> LOGGER.entry(“Request: “, ()->gson.toJson(request)); >> >>> . >> >>> LOGGER.exit(response, ()->gson.toJson(response)); >> >>> >> >>> However this can be handled just as easily by >> >>> >> >>> LOGGER.entry(new JsonMessage(request)); >> >>> . >> >>> LOGGER.exit(response, new JsonMessage(response)); >> >>> >> >>> so I can live without the Supplier. I don’t think MessageSupplier >> actually makes any sense. I can’t see why I would want to do: >> >>> >> >>> LOGGER.entry(()->new JsonMessage(request)); >> >>> >> >>> since it is just creating one object instead of another. >> >>> >> >>> Ralph >> >>> >> >>>> On Feb 18, 2016, at 7:52 PM, Gary Gregory <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >>>> >> >>>> On Feb 18, 2016 5:38 PM, "Remko Popma" <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >>>> > >> >>>> > I would start with just a default FlowMessageFactory. Configurable >> with a system property, so users can swap in their own if they want. >> >>>> > >> >>>> > Only if the need arises to configure FlowMessageFactories on a >> per-logger basis, we can consider adding the methods to LogManager to >> support that. >> >>>> > >> >>>> > So no need for additional getLogger methods for now. >> >>>> > >> >>>> > The default FlowMessageFactory implementation would be the logic >> that's in AbstractMessageFactory now. Gary wrote it so I assume it meets >> his needs. >> >>>> > >> >>>> > Gary, shall we deprecate MessageSupplier and remove >> entry/exitTrace methods using them? >> >>>> >> >>>> That's fine with me. >> >>>> >> >>>> Gary >> >>>> >> >>>> > >> >>>> > >> >>>> > On Friday, 19 February 2016, Gary Gregory <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >>>> >> >> >>>> >> On Thu, Feb 18, 2016 at 4:22 PM, Ralph Goers < >> [email protected]> wrote: >> >>>> >>> >> >>>> >>> Is it really necessary to have getLogger support >> FlowMessageFactory? These messages are really meant as wrappers for other >> messages. so I am not even sure what it would mean for getLogger() to >> support that. How would it know what Message it is wrapping? >> >>>> >>> >> >>>> >>> >> >>>> >>> I am really getting sorry that I started this. >> >>>> >> >> >>>> >> >> >>>> >> Well, hopefully, whatever happens, this is getting all of us into >> reviewing existing and new code. >> >>>> >> >> >>>> >> Another benefit of this conversation is that I fell that we have >> been remarkably civil and respectful of each other, at least compared to >> other outrageous behavior one can read about on the webs. >> >>>> >> >> >>>> >> The use case I want most is in >> org.apache.logging.log4j.LoggerTest.flowTracingString_ObjectArray2_ParameterizedMessageFactory() >> >>>> >> >> >>>> >> Which can be summarized as: >> >>>> >> >> >>>> >> Logger myLogger = LogManager.getLogger("Some.Logger", new >> ParameterizedMessageFactory("Enter", "Exit")); >> >>>> >> EntryMessage msg = myLogger.traceEntry("doFoo(a={}, b={})", 1, 2); >> >>>> >> myLogger.traceExit(msg, 3); >> >>>> >> >> >>>> >> If I cannot pass in my flow message factory or if there are now >> two factories, I need to be able to set it somehow. >> >>>> >> >> >>>> >> I do not like the idea of have a setFlowMessageFactory on a >> Logger because I'd never want to change it. >> >>>> >> >> >>>> >> Gary >> >>>> >> >> >>>> >>> >> >>>> >>> Ralph >> >>>> >>> >> >>>> >>>> On Feb 18, 2016, at 3:31 PM, Gary Gregory < >> [email protected]> wrote: >> >>>> >>>> >> >>>> >>>> On Thu, Feb 18, 2016 at 2:13 PM, Remko Popma < >> [email protected]> wrote: >> >>>> >>>>> >> >>>> >>>>> I think preserving binary compatibility on its own is a strong >> reason for doing this, but it's more than that. >> >>>> >>>> >> >>>> >>>> >> >>>> >>>> OK, since org.apache.logging.log4j.message.MessageFactory is in >> log4j-api that's important. I can buy that. BUT, we are also adding methods >> to Logger so that would break some things too. I guess less breakage is >> better than more in this case! >> >>>> >>>> >> >>>> >>>> Overall, I not convinced that this is the best approach but I >> can appreciate that you seem to feel about it stronger that I do. >> >>>> >>>> >> >>>> >>>>> >> >>>> >>>>> >> >>>> >>>>> Having a separate factory for flow messages makes both >> factories more cohesive (single responsibility principle). No need for one >> factory to extend the other in my view. >> >>>> >>>> >> >>>> >>>> >> >>>> >>>> The distinction is pretty subtle here IMO. We are still talking >> about creating messages, but I get your point. For me, the only reason for >> this is to minimize the risk of API breakage, a nobe goal for the log4j-api >> module, if not a requirement. >> >>>> >>>> >> >>>> >>>>> >> >>>> >>>>> >> >>>> >>>>> The logger would have separate instances so users can >> configure them separately: lower coupling. >> >>>> >>>> >> >>>> >>>> >> >>>> >>>> OK. So now we have: >> >>>> >>>> >> >>>> >>>> org.apache.logging.log4j.LogManager.getLogger(Class<?>, >> MessageFactory) >> >>>> >>>> org.apache.logging.log4j.LogManager.getLogger(Object, >> MessageFactory) >> >>>> >>>> org.apache.logging.log4j.LogManager.getLogger(String, >> MessageFactory) >> >>>> >>>> >> >>>> >>>> We would add: >> >>>> >>>> >> >>>> >>>> org.apache.logging.log4j.LogManager.getLogger(Class<?>, >> MessageFactory, FlowMessageFactory) >> >>>> >>>> org.apache.logging.log4j.LogManager.getLogger(Object, >> MessageFactory, FlowMessageFactory) >> >>>> >>>> org.apache.logging.log4j.LogManager.getLogger(String, >> MessageFactory, FlowMessageFactory) >> >>>> >>>> >> >>>> >>>> Right? Any other places? >> >>>> >>>> >> >>>> >>>>> >> >>>> >>>>> >> >>>> >>>>> These are both desirable properties so I believe it would >> improve the design. >> >>>> >>>>> >> >>>> >>>>> Does this make sense? >> >>>> >>>> >> >>>> >>>> >> >>>> >>>> Sure, even though I am less gun-ho about it than you are. I'd >> say go ahead, see how it looks and feels after you refactor. We can keep >> discussing it once your changes hits the repo if need be. >> >>>> >>>> >> >>>> >>>> Thank you for putting in the work! >> >>>> >>>> Gary >> >>>> >>>> >> >>>> >>>>> Remko >> >>>> >>>>> >> >>>> >>>>> Sent from my iPhone >> >>>> >>>>> >> >>>> >>>>> On 2016/02/19, at 2:24, Gary Gregory <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >>>> >>>>> >> >>>> >>>>>> Is a flow message factory a kind of message factory or a >> different kind of factory? >> >>>> >>>>>> >> >>>> >>>>>> Does a logger need instances of both or just the one? >> >>>> >>>>>> >> >>>> >>>>>> Since entry message extends message, should the factory do so >> as well? >> >>>> >>>>>> >> >>>> >>>>>> Gary, phone, typos. >> >>>> >>>>>> >> >>>> >>>>>> On Feb 18, 2016 8:44 AM, "Remko Popma" <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >>>> >>>>>>> >> >>>> >>>>>>> Would anyone mind terribly if I factored out the FlowMessage >> creation methods from MessageFactory to a new interface FlowMessageFactory? >> >>>> >>>>>>> >> >>>> >>>>>>> Concretely, this interface would contain the methods >> introduced in LOG4J2-1255: >> >>>> >>>>>>> >> >>>> >>>>>>> EntryMessage newEntryMessage(Message message); >> >>>> >>>>>>> ExitMessage newExitMessage(Object object, Message message); >> >>>> >>>>>>> ExitMessage newExitMessage(EntryMessage message); >> >>>> >>>>>>> ExitMessage newExitMessage(Object object, EntryMessage >> message); >> >>>> >>>>>>> >> >>>> >>>>>>> I think flow messages are different enough from normal >> Messages that a separate factory makes sense. >> >>>> >>>>>>> >> >>>> >>>>>>> It would also insulate users who created a custom >> MessageFactory from the changes we made in LOG4J2-1255. >> >>>> >>>>>>> >> >>>> >>>>>>> Thoughts? >> >>>> >>>>>>> >> >>>> >>>>>>> -Remko >> >>>> >>>>>>> >> >>>> >>>>>>> >> >>>> >>>> >> >>>> >>>> >> >>>> >>>> >> >>>> >>>> -- >> >>>> >>>> E-Mail: [email protected] | [email protected] >> >>>> >>>> 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 >> >>>> >>> >> >>>> >>> >> >>>> >> >> >>>> >> >> >>>> >> >> >>>> >> -- >> >>>> >> E-Mail: [email protected] | [email protected] >> >>>> >> 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 >> >>> >> >>> >> > >> >> -- >> E-Mail: [email protected] | [email protected] >> 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 >> >> >> >>
