Re: [PROPOSAL] Use standard logging practices

2015-12-29 Thread John Sirois 
On Tue, Dec 29, 2015 at 4:52 PM, Jeff Schroeder 
wrote:

> What about using logback instead of log4j? It has some interesting benefits
> over log4j and we wouldn't be the first large mesos framework to switch to
> it.
>
> Personally, I'd love to see glog burn and die in a fire.
>

The nice thing about glog _format_ is it can be used to make correlating
mesos & aurora events easier.  I'm all for making emulating the mesos log
format easy with whatever logging package we use.
Its true that aurora doesn't ship with tools to view merged logs for
mesos/aurora/thermos, but those sorts of tools are very nice to have.  That
said, it would not be hard to add a temporal translator for each to align
log lines.


>
> On Monday, December 28, 2015, Bill Farner  wrote:
>
> > We're currently using some logging scaffolding carried over from Twitter
> > commons.  I would like to propose that we dismantle some of this in favor
> > of more standard java application logging conventions.
> >
> > Concretely, i propose we remove the following scheduler command line
> > arguments:
> > -logtostderr
> > -alsologtostderr
> > -vlog
> > -vmodule
> > -use_glog_formatter
> >
> > Instead of these, we can allow users to customize logging via standard
> > java.util.logging inputs (e.g. logging.properties).  We could explore
> using
> > an alternative to java.util.logging, but i suggest we retain that backend
> > for now (since it's what we're currently using).
> >
>
>
> --
> Text by Jeff, typos by iPhone
>



-- 
John Sirois
303-512-3301

Re: [PROPOSAL] Use standard logging practices

2015-12-29 Thread Jeff Schroeder 
What about using logback instead of log4j? It has some interesting benefits
over log4j and we wouldn't be the first large mesos framework to switch to
it.

Personally, I'd love to see glog burn and die in a fire.

On Monday, December 28, 2015, Bill Farner  wrote:

> We're currently using some logging scaffolding carried over from Twitter
> commons.  I would like to propose that we dismantle some of this in favor
> of more standard java application logging conventions.
>
> Concretely, i propose we remove the following scheduler command line
> arguments:
> -logtostderr
> -alsologtostderr
> -vlog
> -vmodule
> -use_glog_formatter
>
> Instead of these, we can allow users to customize logging via standard
> java.util.logging inputs (e.g. logging.properties).  We could explore using
> an alternative to java.util.logging, but i suggest we retain that backend
> for now (since it's what we're currently using).
>


-- 
Text by Jeff, typos by iPhone

Re: [PROPOSAL] Use standard logging practices

2015-12-29 Thread John Sirois 
On Tue, Dec 29, 2015 at 5:05 PM, John Sirois  wrote:

>
>
> On Tue, Dec 29, 2015 at 5:02 PM, Jeff Schroeder <
> jeffschroe...@computer.org> wrote:
>
>> Primarily it is faster, uses less memory, and annotates tracebacks with
>> package versions. The last one seems like a winner for debugging user
>> issues or operationally.
>>
>> http://logback.qos.ch/reasonsToSwitch.html
>>
>> I'm not strongly opinionated either way, but it does seem like a better
>> log4j.
>>
>
> Looks like this decision is nicely  limited to a build.gradle edit:
> http://logback.qos.ch/reasonsToSwitch.html#slf4j
>

After a brief skim of the configuration docs [1], I'm in favor of switching
in a follow-up RB to https://reviews.apache.org/r/41777/
In short - logback supports pointing to a non-root config file via a
system-property out of the box, this makes aurora a non-nuisance for
operators, they can easily modify init scripts to point to a custom config.

[1] http://logback.qos.ch/manual/configuration.html


>
>> On Tuesday, December 29, 2015, Bill Farner  wrote:
>>
>> > I don't have a strong opinion about logback vs log4j.  Can you summarize
>> > some of the tradeoffs?
>> >
>> > On Tue, Dec 29, 2015 at 3:52 PM, Jeff Schroeder <
>> > jeffschroe...@computer.org >
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> > > What about using logback instead of log4j? It has some interesting
>> > benefits
>> > > over log4j and we wouldn't be the first large mesos framework to
>> switch
>> > to
>> > > it.
>> > >
>> > > Personally, I'd love to see glog burn and die in a fire.
>> > >
>> > > On Monday, December 28, 2015, Bill Farner > > > wrote:
>> > >
>> > > > We're currently using some logging scaffolding carried over from
>> > Twitter
>> > > > commons.  I would like to propose that we dismantle some of this in
>> > favor
>> > > > of more standard java application logging conventions.
>> > > >
>> > > > Concretely, i propose we remove the following scheduler command line
>> > > > arguments:
>> > > > -logtostderr
>> > > > -alsologtostderr
>> > > > -vlog
>> > > > -vmodule
>> > > > -use_glog_formatter
>> > > >
>> > > > Instead of these, we can allow users to customize logging via
>> standard
>> > > > java.util.logging inputs (e.g. logging.properties).  We could
>> explore
>> > > using
>> > > > an alternative to java.util.logging, but i suggest we retain that
>> > backend
>> > > > for now (since it's what we're currently using).
>> > > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > --
>> > > Text by Jeff, typos by iPhone
>> > >
>> >
>>
>>
>> --
>> Text by Jeff, typos by iPhone
>>
>
>
>
> --
> John Sirois
> 303-512-3301
>



-- 
John Sirois
303-512-3301

Re: [PROPOSAL] Use standard logging practices

2015-12-29 Thread John Sirois 
On Tue, Dec 29, 2015 at 5:02 PM, Jeff Schroeder 
wrote:

> Primarily it is faster, uses less memory, and annotates tracebacks with
> package versions. The last one seems like a winner for debugging user
> issues or operationally.
>
> http://logback.qos.ch/reasonsToSwitch.html
>
> I'm not strongly opinionated either way, but it does seem like a better
> log4j.
>

Looks like this decision is nicely  limited to a build.gradle edit:
http://logback.qos.ch/reasonsToSwitch.html#slf4j


> On Tuesday, December 29, 2015, Bill Farner  wrote:
>
> > I don't have a strong opinion about logback vs log4j.  Can you summarize
> > some of the tradeoffs?
> >
> > On Tue, Dec 29, 2015 at 3:52 PM, Jeff Schroeder <
> > jeffschroe...@computer.org >
> > wrote:
> >
> > > What about using logback instead of log4j? It has some interesting
> > benefits
> > > over log4j and we wouldn't be the first large mesos framework to switch
> > to
> > > it.
> > >
> > > Personally, I'd love to see glog burn and die in a fire.
> > >
> > > On Monday, December 28, 2015, Bill Farner  > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > We're currently using some logging scaffolding carried over from
> > Twitter
> > > > commons.  I would like to propose that we dismantle some of this in
> > favor
> > > > of more standard java application logging conventions.
> > > >
> > > > Concretely, i propose we remove the following scheduler command line
> > > > arguments:
> > > > -logtostderr
> > > > -alsologtostderr
> > > > -vlog
> > > > -vmodule
> > > > -use_glog_formatter
> > > >
> > > > Instead of these, we can allow users to customize logging via
> standard
> > > > java.util.logging inputs (e.g. logging.properties).  We could explore
> > > using
> > > > an alternative to java.util.logging, but i suggest we retain that
> > backend
> > > > for now (since it's what we're currently using).
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Text by Jeff, typos by iPhone
> > >
> >
>
>
> --
> Text by Jeff, typos by iPhone
>



-- 
John Sirois
303-512-3301

Re: [PROPOSAL] Use standard logging practices

2015-12-29 Thread Jake Farrell 
Logback can not be used as it is LGPL licensed

-Jake

On Tue, Dec 29, 2015 at 7:02 PM, Jeff Schroeder 
wrote:

> Primarily it is faster, uses less memory, and annotates tracebacks with
> package versions. The last one seems like a winner for debugging user
> issues or operationally.
>
> http://logback.qos.ch/reasonsToSwitch.html
>
> I'm not strongly opinionated either way, but it does seem like a better
> log4j.
>
> On Tuesday, December 29, 2015, Bill Farner  wrote:
>
> > I don't have a strong opinion about logback vs log4j.  Can you summarize
> > some of the tradeoffs?
> >
> > On Tue, Dec 29, 2015 at 3:52 PM, Jeff Schroeder <
> > jeffschroe...@computer.org >
> > wrote:
> >
> > > What about using logback instead of log4j? It has some interesting
> > benefits
> > > over log4j and we wouldn't be the first large mesos framework to switch
> > to
> > > it.
> > >
> > > Personally, I'd love to see glog burn and die in a fire.
> > >
> > > On Monday, December 28, 2015, Bill Farner  > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > We're currently using some logging scaffolding carried over from
> > Twitter
> > > > commons.  I would like to propose that we dismantle some of this in
> > favor
> > > > of more standard java application logging conventions.
> > > >
> > > > Concretely, i propose we remove the following scheduler command line
> > > > arguments:
> > > > -logtostderr
> > > > -alsologtostderr
> > > > -vlog
> > > > -vmodule
> > > > -use_glog_formatter
> > > >
> > > > Instead of these, we can allow users to customize logging via
> standard
> > > > java.util.logging inputs (e.g. logging.properties).  We could explore
> > > using
> > > > an alternative to java.util.logging, but i suggest we retain that
> > backend
> > > > for now (since it's what we're currently using).
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Text by Jeff, typos by iPhone
> > >
> >
>
>
> --
> Text by Jeff, typos by iPhone
>

Re: [PROPOSAL] Use standard logging practices

2015-12-29 Thread Bill Farner 
Aha, good catch.  Sounds like log4j takes the cake.

On Tue, Dec 29, 2015 at 7:34 PM, Jake Farrell  wrote:

> Logback can not be used as it is LGPL licensed
>
> -Jake
>
> On Tue, Dec 29, 2015 at 7:02 PM, Jeff Schroeder <
> jeffschroe...@computer.org>
> wrote:
>
> > Primarily it is faster, uses less memory, and annotates tracebacks with
> > package versions. The last one seems like a winner for debugging user
> > issues or operationally.
> >
> > http://logback.qos.ch/reasonsToSwitch.html
> >
> > I'm not strongly opinionated either way, but it does seem like a better
> > log4j.
> >
> > On Tuesday, December 29, 2015, Bill Farner  wrote:
> >
> > > I don't have a strong opinion about logback vs log4j.  Can you
> summarize
> > > some of the tradeoffs?
> > >
> > > On Tue, Dec 29, 2015 at 3:52 PM, Jeff Schroeder <
> > > jeffschroe...@computer.org >
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > What about using logback instead of log4j? It has some interesting
> > > benefits
> > > > over log4j and we wouldn't be the first large mesos framework to
> switch
> > > to
> > > > it.
> > > >
> > > > Personally, I'd love to see glog burn and die in a fire.
> > > >
> > > > On Monday, December 28, 2015, Bill Farner  > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > We're currently using some logging scaffolding carried over from
> > > Twitter
> > > > > commons.  I would like to propose that we dismantle some of this in
> > > favor
> > > > > of more standard java application logging conventions.
> > > > >
> > > > > Concretely, i propose we remove the following scheduler command
> line
> > > > > arguments:
> > > > > -logtostderr
> > > > > -alsologtostderr
> > > > > -vlog
> > > > > -vmodule
> > > > > -use_glog_formatter
> > > > >
> > > > > Instead of these, we can allow users to customize logging via
> > standard
> > > > > java.util.logging inputs (e.g. logging.properties).  We could
> explore
> > > > using
> > > > > an alternative to java.util.logging, but i suggest we retain that
> > > backend
> > > > > for now (since it's what we're currently using).
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Text by Jeff, typos by iPhone
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Text by Jeff, typos by iPhone
> >
>

Re: [PROPOSAL] Use standard logging practices

2015-12-29 Thread Dave Lester 
Looks like logback is actually dual-licensed under EPL v1.0 and LGPL. 
http://logback.qos.ch/license.html 

So technically, the logbook EPL code could be included in object/binary form 
http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#category-b 


> On Dec 29, 2015, at 10:34 PM, Jake Farrell  wrote:
> 
> Logback can not be used as it is LGPL licensed
> 
> -Jake
> 
> On Tue, Dec 29, 2015 at 7:02 PM, Jeff Schroeder 
> wrote:
> 
>> Primarily it is faster, uses less memory, and annotates tracebacks with
>> package versions. The last one seems like a winner for debugging user
>> issues or operationally.
>> 
>> http://logback.qos.ch/reasonsToSwitch.html
>> 
>> I'm not strongly opinionated either way, but it does seem like a better
>> log4j.
>> 
>> On Tuesday, December 29, 2015, Bill Farner  wrote:
>> 
>>> I don't have a strong opinion about logback vs log4j.  Can you summarize
>>> some of the tradeoffs?
>>> 
>>> On Tue, Dec 29, 2015 at 3:52 PM, Jeff Schroeder <
>>> jeffschroe...@computer.org >
>>> wrote:
>>> 
 What about using logback instead of log4j? It has some interesting
>>> benefits
 over log4j and we wouldn't be the first large mesos framework to switch
>>> to
 it.
 
 Personally, I'd love to see glog burn and die in a fire.
 
 On Monday, December 28, 2015, Bill Farner >> > wrote:
 
> We're currently using some logging scaffolding carried over from
>>> Twitter
> commons.  I would like to propose that we dismantle some of this in
>>> favor
> of more standard java application logging conventions.
> 
> Concretely, i propose we remove the following scheduler command line
> arguments:
> -logtostderr
> -alsologtostderr
> -vlog
> -vmodule
> -use_glog_formatter
> 
> Instead of these, we can allow users to customize logging via
>> standard
> java.util.logging inputs (e.g. logging.properties).  We could explore
 using
> an alternative to java.util.logging, but i suggest we retain that
>>> backend
> for now (since it's what we're currently using).
> 
 
 
 --
 Text by Jeff, typos by iPhone
 
>>> 
>> 
>> 
>> --
>> Text by Jeff, typos by iPhone
>>

Re: [PROPOSAL] Use standard logging practices

2015-12-29 Thread Jeff Schroeder 
On Tuesday, December 29, 2015, John Sirois  wrote:

> On Tue, Dec 29, 2015 at 5:18 PM, John Sirois  > wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Dec 29, 2015 at 5:05 PM, John Sirois  > wrote:
> >
> >>
> >>
> >> On Tue, Dec 29, 2015 at 5:02 PM, Jeff Schroeder <
> >> jeffschroe...@computer.org > wrote:
> >>
> >>> Primarily it is faster, uses less memory, and annotates tracebacks with
> >>> package versions. The last one seems like a winner for debugging user
> >>> issues or operationally.
> >>>
> >>> http://logback.qos.ch/reasonsToSwitch.html
> >>>
> >>> I'm not strongly opinionated either way, but it does seem like a better
> >>> log4j.
> >>>
> >>
> >> Looks like this decision is nicely  limited to a build.gradle edit:
> >> http://logback.qos.ch/reasonsToSwitch.html#slf4j
> >>
> >
> > After a brief skim of the configuration docs [1], I'm in favor of
> > switching in a follow-up RB to https://reviews.apache.org/r/41777/
> > In short - logback supports pointing to a non-root config file via a
> > system-property out of the box, this makes aurora a non-nuisance for
> > operators, they can easily modify init scripts to point to a custom
> config.
> >
> > [1] http://logback.qos.ch/manual/configuration.html
> >
>
> Ah yes, easier said than done since we have /logconfig [1][2].
> Jeff - do you feel strongly enough about this to file an issue to
> investigate / prove out perf wins / send up a change? (doing any part of
> this or all of this would wonderful and I'd be happy to review).


I would if I had the free time to work on it, which I'm unlikely to have
for some time. I'd rather not file more tickets for Bill to clean up in a
year. Just wanted to suggest it as an option if the work is going to be
done regardless.


-- 
Text by Jeff, typos by iPhone

Re: [PROPOSAL] Use standard logging practices

2015-12-29 Thread Bill Farner 
Aha, good catch^2!

On Tue, Dec 29, 2015 at 9:05 PM, Dave Lester  wrote:

> Looks like logback is actually dual-licensed under EPL v1.0 and LGPL.
> http://logback.qos.ch/license.html 
>
> So technically, the logbook EPL code could be included in object/binary
> form http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#category-b <
> http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#category-b>
>
> > On Dec 29, 2015, at 10:34 PM, Jake Farrell  wrote:
> >
> > Logback can not be used as it is LGPL licensed
> >
> > -Jake
> >
> > On Tue, Dec 29, 2015 at 7:02 PM, Jeff Schroeder <
> jeffschroe...@computer.org>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> Primarily it is faster, uses less memory, and annotates tracebacks with
> >> package versions. The last one seems like a winner for debugging user
> >> issues or operationally.
> >>
> >> http://logback.qos.ch/reasonsToSwitch.html
> >>
> >> I'm not strongly opinionated either way, but it does seem like a better
> >> log4j.
> >>
> >> On Tuesday, December 29, 2015, Bill Farner  wrote:
> >>
> >>> I don't have a strong opinion about logback vs log4j.  Can you
> summarize
> >>> some of the tradeoffs?
> >>>
> >>> On Tue, Dec 29, 2015 at 3:52 PM, Jeff Schroeder <
> >>> jeffschroe...@computer.org >
> >>> wrote:
> >>>
>  What about using logback instead of log4j? It has some interesting
> >>> benefits
>  over log4j and we wouldn't be the first large mesos framework to
> switch
> >>> to
>  it.
> 
>  Personally, I'd love to see glog burn and die in a fire.
> 
>  On Monday, December 28, 2015, Bill Farner  >>> > wrote:
> 
> > We're currently using some logging scaffolding carried over from
> >>> Twitter
> > commons.  I would like to propose that we dismantle some of this in
> >>> favor
> > of more standard java application logging conventions.
> >
> > Concretely, i propose we remove the following scheduler command line
> > arguments:
> > -logtostderr
> > -alsologtostderr
> > -vlog
> > -vmodule
> > -use_glog_formatter
> >
> > Instead of these, we can allow users to customize logging via
> >> standard
> > java.util.logging inputs (e.g. logging.properties).  We could explore
>  using
> > an alternative to java.util.logging, but i suggest we retain that
> >>> backend
> > for now (since it's what we're currently using).
> >
> 
> 
>  --
>  Text by Jeff, typos by iPhone
> 
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Text by Jeff, typos by iPhone
> >>
>
>

Re: [PROPOSAL] Use standard logging practices

2015-12-29 Thread Bill Farner 
FYI i have updated my patch to switch us to log4j as a straw man (mostly
because i embarked before Dave's clarification)
https://reviews.apache.org/r/41785/

I'm interested in general feedback on the patch, but encourage continued
discussion on deciding between log4j and logback.


On Tue, Dec 29, 2015 at 9:55 PM, Bill Farner  wrote:

> Aha, good catch^2!
>
> On Tue, Dec 29, 2015 at 9:05 PM, Dave Lester  wrote:
>
>> Looks like logback is actually dual-licensed under EPL v1.0 and LGPL.
>> http://logback.qos.ch/license.html 
>>
>> So technically, the logbook EPL code could be included in object/binary
>> form http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#category-b <
>> http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#category-b>
>>
>> > On Dec 29, 2015, at 10:34 PM, Jake Farrell  wrote:
>> >
>> > Logback can not be used as it is LGPL licensed
>> >
>> > -Jake
>> >
>> > On Tue, Dec 29, 2015 at 7:02 PM, Jeff Schroeder <
>> jeffschroe...@computer.org>
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> >> Primarily it is faster, uses less memory, and annotates tracebacks with
>> >> package versions. The last one seems like a winner for debugging user
>> >> issues or operationally.
>> >>
>> >> http://logback.qos.ch/reasonsToSwitch.html
>> >>
>> >> I'm not strongly opinionated either way, but it does seem like a better
>> >> log4j.
>> >>
>> >> On Tuesday, December 29, 2015, Bill Farner  wrote:
>> >>
>> >>> I don't have a strong opinion about logback vs log4j.  Can you
>> summarize
>> >>> some of the tradeoffs?
>> >>>
>> >>> On Tue, Dec 29, 2015 at 3:52 PM, Jeff Schroeder <
>> >>> jeffschroe...@computer.org >
>> >>> wrote:
>> >>>
>>  What about using logback instead of log4j? It has some interesting
>> >>> benefits
>>  over log4j and we wouldn't be the first large mesos framework to
>> switch
>> >>> to
>>  it.
>> 
>>  Personally, I'd love to see glog burn and die in a fire.
>> 
>>  On Monday, December 28, 2015, Bill Farner > >>> > wrote:
>> 
>> > We're currently using some logging scaffolding carried over from
>> >>> Twitter
>> > commons.  I would like to propose that we dismantle some of this in
>> >>> favor
>> > of more standard java application logging conventions.
>> >
>> > Concretely, i propose we remove the following scheduler command line
>> > arguments:
>> > -logtostderr
>> > -alsologtostderr
>> > -vlog
>> > -vmodule
>> > -use_glog_formatter
>> >
>> > Instead of these, we can allow users to customize logging via
>> >> standard
>> > java.util.logging inputs (e.g. logging.properties).  We could
>> explore
>>  using
>> > an alternative to java.util.logging, but i suggest we retain that
>> >>> backend
>> > for now (since it's what we're currently using).
>> >
>> 
>> 
>>  --
>>  Text by Jeff, typos by iPhone
>> 
>> >>>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> --
>> >> Text by Jeff, typos by iPhone
>> >>
>>
>>
>

Re: [PROPOSAL] Use standard logging practices

2015-12-28 Thread Zameer Manji 
+1

Could we still keep the Glog formatter class so folks who want to have the
same log formatting between the Aurora log lines and the Mesos driver
(which prints to stderr by default) just have to add a line to their
logging.properties?

The alternative means users would have to build their own glog formatter
and add it to the classpath in addition to setting the formatter in
logging.properties which is not straight forward if you want to have
reasonably formatted log entries between the driver and the scheduler.

On Mon, Dec 28, 2015 at 2:54 PM, Bill Farner  wrote:

> We're currently using some logging scaffolding carried over from Twitter
> commons.  I would like to propose that we dismantle some of this in favor
> of more standard java application logging conventions.
>
> Concretely, i propose we remove the following scheduler command line
> arguments:
> -logtostderr
> -alsologtostderr
> -vlog
> -vmodule
> -use_glog_formatter
>
> Instead of these, we can allow users to customize logging via standard
> java.util.logging inputs (e.g. logging.properties).  We could explore using
> an alternative to java.util.logging, but i suggest we retain that backend
> for now (since it's what we're currently using).
>
> --
> Zameer Manji
>
>