Yes it did appear toByteArray would do the job on the /sending/ side but
what about the /receiving/ side? We've got to put some bytes on the wire
that will come out as a LogEvent from the readObject() call in
ObjectInputStreamLogEventBridge. You can't have the sender be
Externalizable and the received class be only Serializable.
Unless you're proposing we make a totally new LogEventBridge -- i.e. a
'compact binary' protocol to go alongside the XML and Json versions. If we
go that route then you could achieve even more compression since we know
every object that we're sending is a LogEvent and even Externalizable has
some overhead that we could do away with.
On Sat, 12 Jul 2014, Remko Popma wrote:
On Sat, Jul 12, 2014 at 12:52 AM, Remko Popma <remko.po...@gmail.com> wrote:
What prevents you from writing a more compact representation of the
LogEvent (including all other LogEvent fields) to the byte array in the
{{toByteArray(LogEvent)}} method of an ExternalizableLayout?
(Just to clarify, I intended this question literally as it could easily be
that I overlooked something...)
On Sat, Jul 12, 2014 at 12:45 AM, Scott Harrington <scott...@sns-usa.com>
wrote:
I looked at replacing SerializedLayout and/or the toSerializable method
but the real savings comes not from the Message itself but from all the
other fields of the LogEvent, such as the Level, ContextMap, ContextStack,
and the class descriptor (including superclasses) of the LogEvent itself.
For big messages, an ExternalizableLayout would be a fine solution,
because writeUTF would give you roughly 50% compression over Java's default
2-byte per char String serialization.
However for typical log messages the message itself is being dwarfed on
the wire by class descriptor overhead.
On Sat, 12 Jul 2014, Remko Popma wrote:
That is a nice reduction in size!
I also think the ExternalizedLayout idea is a very attractive option.
That
way there is no pressure to include this in any particular release, we
can
release it when we are confident that is ready. I also like the fact that
it does not replace the current serialization and it can be switched on
and
off in configuration so if there is a bug, users can fall back to the
existing plain serialization.
On Fri, Jul 11, 2014 at 10:00 PM, Matt Sicker <boa...@gmail.com> wrote:
I would second the ExternalizedLayout. Layouts are the way to go for
compatibility and are simpler. Particularly useful for alternative
serialization protocols, too.
On 11 July 2014 06:41, Gary Gregory <garydgreg...@gmail.com> wrote:
I understand Ralph ' s concern but now is the time for this kind of
change. Otherwise we will need even more clever solutions to get this
kind
of size improvement. I'd love to see some performance numbers. The size
improvement is not negligible, which is great!
Gary
<div>-------- Original message --------</div><div>From: Ralph Goers <
ralph.go...@dslextreme.com> </div><div>Date:07/11/2014 01:46
(GMT-05:00) </div><div>To: Log4J Users List <
log4j-user@logging.apache.org> </div><div>Subject: Re: Make LogEvent
implementations Externalizable </div><div>
</div>I’d be afraid of breaking compatibility even now. However, I
think
what you really want to do is to create an ExternalizedLayout and then
just
use that instead of the default SerializedLayout. If you want to
supply
that Layout as a patch to a Jira issue it could be added at any time.
Ralph
On Jul 10, 2014, at 9:23 PM, Scott Harrington <scott...@sns-usa.com>
wrote:
Ralph & co:
I hear you're gearing up for the release.
Last weekend I scratched an itch of mine relating to SocketAppender ->
SocketServer bandwidth, and was able to reduce a 500-character message
from
around 1700 bytes to 700 bytes on the wire (it's easy to improve on
Java's
default serialization).
I was going to submit an enhancement request with patch to JIRA but
instead I went on vacation for two weeks.
I made RingBufferLogEvent implement Externalizable, i.e. hand-coded
writeExternal / readExternal methods. I did NOT have time to make an
equivalent change to Log4jLogEvent, or to write up any performance
tests
or
regression tests.
Should I submit what I have for discussion and hopeful inclusion in
2.0?
Or will it have to wait for 2.1?
If we wait, then due to the necessary serialVersionUID change, v2.0
SocketAppender would not be able to talk to v2.1 SocketServer or vice
versa
(unless ugly duplicate versions are maintained).
Below is what the added code looks like. I only tested in
RingBufferLogEvent but should be similarly usable in Log4jLogEvent, and
perhaps we should discuss a RingBufferLogEvent.readResolve that makes
them
all become Log4jLogEvents on the SocketServer (receiving) end.
...
public void writeExternal(ObjectOutput out) throws IOException {
getThrownProxy();
out.writeByte(1); // wireFormat
int presenceMap = (loggerName == null ? 0 : 0x1) |
(marker == null ? 0 : 0x2) |
(fqcn == null ? 0 : 0x4) |
(level == null ? 0 : 0x8) |
(message == null ? 0 : (0x10 |
(isSerializeAsString(message)
? 0 : 0x20))) |
(thrownProxy == null ? 0 : 0x40) |
(contextMap == null ? 0 : 0x80) |
(contextStack == null ? 0 : 0x100 |
(contextStack.getDepth()
== 0 ? 0 : 0x200)) |
(threadName == null ? 0 : 0x400) |
(location == null ? 0 : 0x800);
out.writeShort(presenceMap);
if (loggerName != null) {
out.writeUTF(loggerName);
}
if (marker != null) {
out.writeObject(marker);
}
if (fqcn != null) {
out.writeUTF(fqcn);
}
if (level != null) {
out.writeUTF(level.name());
}
if (message != null) {
if (isSerializeAsString(message)) {
out.writeUTF(message.getFormattedMessage());
}
else {
out.writeObject(message);
}
}
if (thrownProxy != null) {
out.writeObject(thrownProxy);
}
if (contextMap != null) {
writeString2StringMap(out, contextMap);
}
if (contextStack != null && contextStack.getDepth() != 0) {
out.writeObject(contextStack);
}
if (threadName != null) {
out.writeUTF(threadName);
}
if (location != null) {
out.writeUTF(location.getClassName());
out.writeUTF(location.getMethodName());
if ((presenceMap & 0x1000) != 0) {
out.writeUTF(location.getFileName());
}
out.writeInt(location.getLineNumber());
}
out.writeLong(currentTimeMillis);
out.writeBoolean(endOfBatch);
out.writeBoolean(includeLocation);
}
public void readExternal(ObjectInput in) throws IOException,
ClassNotFoundException {
int wireFormat = in.readByte();
if (wireFormat == 1) {
int presenceMap = in.readShort();
loggerName = (presenceMap & 0x1) == 0 ? null :
in.readUTF();
marker = (presenceMap & 0x2) == 0 ? null :
(Marker) in.readObject();
fqcn = (presenceMap & 0x4) == 0 ? null :
in.readUTF();
level = (presenceMap & 0x8) == 0 ? null :
Level.valueOf(in.readUTF());
message = (presenceMap & 0x10) == 0 ? null :
(presenceMap & 0x20) == 0 ? new
SimpleMessage(in.readUTF()) : (Message) in.readObject();
thrownProxy = (presenceMap & 0x40) == 0 ? null :
(ThrowableProxy) in.readObject();
contextMap = (presenceMap & 0x80) == 0 ? null :
readString2StringMap(in);
contextStack = (presenceMap & 0x100) == 0 ? null :
(presenceMap & 0x200) == 0 ? ThreadContext.EMPTY_STACK
:
(ContextStack) in.readObject();
threadName = (presenceMap & 0x400) == 0 ? null :
in.readUTF();
location = (presenceMap & 0x800) == 0 ? null :
new StackTraceElement(in.readUTF(), in.readUTF(),
(presenceMap & 0x1000) == 0 ? null : in.readUTF(), in.readInt());
currentTimeMillis = in.readLong();
endOfBatch = in.readBoolean();
includeLocation = in.readBoolean();
}
else {
throw new StreamCorruptedException("Unsupported LogEvent
wire
format " + wireFormat);
}
}
private static boolean isSerializeAsString(Message message)
{
return message instanceof SimpleMessage || message instanceof
ObjectMessage;
}
private void writeString2StringMap(ObjectOutput out, Map<String,
String> map) throws IOException
{
out.writeInt(map.size());
for (Map.Entry<String, String> entry : map.entrySet()) {
out.writeUTF(entry.getKey());
out.writeUTF(entry.getValue());
}
}
private static Map<String, String> readString2StringMap(
ObjectInput
in) throws ClassNotFoundException, IOException
{
int size = in.readInt();
if (size == 0) {
return Collections.emptyMap();
}
Map<String, String> map = new HashMap<String, String>(size);
while (size-- > 0) {
map.put(in.readUTF(), in.readUTF());
}
return map;
}
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: log4j-user-unsubscr...@logging.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: log4j-user-h...@logging.apache.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: log4j-user-unsubscr...@logging.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: log4j-user-h...@logging.apache.org
--
Matt Sicker <boa...@gmail.com>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: log4j-user-unsubscr...@logging.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: log4j-user-h...@logging.apache.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: log4j-user-unsubscr...@logging.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: log4j-user-h...@logging.apache.org
