Maybe PropertiesUtil is too low-level to use StatusLogger? I remember fighting with a similar problem a while ago due to cyclic dependencies like that.
On 21 February 2016 at 07:13, Remko Popma <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> > -- Matt Sicker <[email protected]>
