Matt, you can take advantage of the new Multi-Release Jar feature of JDK 9: http://openjdk.java.net/jeps/238
This way you can provide a single artifact and have key classes replaced for JDK 9 with your specialized implementation. Cheers, Paul On Wed, May 11, 2016 at 1:10 PM, Matt Sicker <[email protected]> wrote: > How would we do that while still making log4j compatible with 1.7 and 1.8? > > On 11 May 2016 at 12:06, Ralph Goers <[email protected]> wrote: > >> For those you not following the OpenJDK mailing list, Mandy is >> recommending we do >> >> walker.walk(s -> s.skip(2).findFirst()); >> >> in every logger method to capture the stack frame information. We might >> have to call it twice to get the Class as well. This will probably break >> the garbage free tests and it might incur more overhead then is acceptable. >> We will have to do some testing to find out. >> >> Ralph >> >> >> >> On May 10, 2016, at 10:41 AM, Ralph Goers <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >> We don’t use that for getting the caller location. We only use the >> throwable. You are thinking of the code that needs to get the caller’s >> Class object. >> >> Ralph >> >> On May 10, 2016, at 10:33 AM, Matt Sicker <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> JDK 9 should be blocking the sun.reflect classes which means we fall back >> to SecurityManager or Throwable depending on the method. >> >> On 10 May 2016 at 11:51, Ralph Goers <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> I just responded to that thread with the results below. I was hoping we >>> wouldn’t need to use the StackWalker API. Now I am wondering if it is any >>> faster. My initial tests showed it was much faster than using the >>> Throwable, but that doesn’t mean much if that is now slower. >>> >>> Ralph >>> >>> On May 10, 2016, at 9:47 AM, Ralph Goers <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> >>> No. On the openjdk list Mandy said that walking the Throwable as we are >>> doing should be faster due to improvements made in JDK-8150778. >>> >>> Ralph >>> >>> On May 10, 2016, at 9:21 AM, Paul Benedict <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> Are you using the new JDK 9 APIs to walk the stack? >>> >>> Cheers, >>> Paul >>> >>> On Tue, May 10, 2016 at 11:20 AM, Ralph Goers < >>> [email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> Supposedly Java 9 was supposed to improve the performance of walking >>>> the stack trace. However, the numbers I get below indicate to me that they >>>> are moving in the opposite direction. Am I misreading this? >>>> >>>> Ralph >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> java version "1.7.0_80 >>>> >>>> Benchmark >>>> Mode Samples Score Error Units >>>> o.a.l.l.p.j.AsyncAppenderLog4j2LocationBenchmark.throughputSimple >>>> thrpt 20 124819.285 ± 3003.918 ops/s >>>> >>>> java version "1.8.0_65" >>>> >>>> Benchmark >>>> Mode Samples Score Error Units >>>> o.a.l.l.p.j.AsyncAppenderLog4j2LocationBenchmark.throughputSimple >>>> thrpt 20 123209.746 ± 3064.672 ops/s >>>> >>>> >>>> java version "9-ea" >>>> Java(TM) SE Runtime Environment (build 9-ea+116) >>>> >>>> Benchmark >>>> Mode Samples Score Error Units >>>> o.a.l.l.p.j.AsyncAppenderLog4j2LocationBenchmark.throughputSimple >>>> thrpt 20 96090.261 ± 4565.763 ops/s >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> -- >> Matt Sicker <[email protected]> >> >> >> >> > > > -- > Matt Sicker <[email protected]> >
