I tried again to use PropertiesUtil.getProperties().getStringProperty() instead of System.getProperty, without success. The reason is that this logic is executed to initialize a static field in AbstractLogger; PropertiesUtil internally uses StatusLogger, which extends AbstractLogger.
I see many log4j-api tests fail: it starts with java.lang.NoClassDefFoundError: Could not initialize class org.apache.logging.log4j.status.StatusLogger and goes downhill from there... Perhaps there is some way around this but I don't see it... On Sat, Feb 20, 2016 at 7:18 AM, Remko Popma <[email protected]> wrote: > 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]> >> 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 >>> >>> >>> >>>
