Re: logging during multithreaded builds (follow-up)
For my needs logging thread names was not enough. I needed to capture
logging using "other" logging frameworks (commons-logging,
java.util.logging, log4j, logback, System.out/err). I also wanted to be
able to see individual project build messages grouped together, either
in separate files on filesystem or in console. I also wanted ability to
do custom routing of logging messages, which I use in m2e maven dev
tools to capture and display build logs. Not saying everyone needs all
of these, of course, you don't need anything fancier if thread names are
good enough for you.
--
Regards,
Igor
On Fri, Jul 17, 2015, at 12:16 PM, Sander Verhagen wrote:
> Hi,
>
>
> I dug a little (really, just a little) further, and I'm wondering what is
> missing when I would just set org.slf4j.simpleLogger.showThreadName=true
> in /conf/logging/simplelogger.properties? It seems too simple :)
>
> But it seems to be showing me thread names to distinguish things by:
>
> [main]
> [BuilderThread 0]
> [BuilderThread 1]
> Et cetera...
>
> Thanks, Sander.
>
>
>
> Sander Verhagen
> [ san...@sanderverhagen.net ]
>
> NOTICE: my e-mail address has changed. Please remove verha...@sander.com
> now and start using san...@sanderverhagen.net from now on. Please update
> your address book. Thank you!
>
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Igor Fedorenko [mailto:i...@ifedorenko.com]
> > Sent: Tuesday, June 09, 2015 12:15
> > To: Maven Developers List; Sander Verhagen
> > Subject: Re: logging during multithreaded builds (follow-up)
> >
> > Based on the feedback I got on this list I did not include the logger
> > extension
> > in maven itself but kept it in a separate repository. I may opensource that
> > repository some time in the future but it is not a priority for me right
> > now.
> >
> > --
> > Regards,
> > Igor
> >
> >
> >
> > On June 9, 2015 1:33:46 PM Sander Verhagen
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Hi group,
> > >
> > >
> > > Sorry if it's inappropriate for me to ask this in the dev list, but this
> > > is
> > > where this was previously discussed. I'm interested in the work that Igor
> > > mentioned around logging during multithreaded builds. It sounded like
> > there
> > > was an addition to Maven being built (whether it be in the core or some
> > > extension). Is that somehow generally available, be it in released form or
> > > as ("alpha") source code that I can build myself?
> > >
> > > Much appreciated,
> > >
> > >
> > > Sander Verhagen
> > > [ san...@sanderverhagen.net<mailto:san...@sanderverhagen.net> ]
> >
>
>
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org
>
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org
RE: logging during multithreaded builds (follow-up)
Hi,
I dug a little (really, just a little) further, and I'm wondering what is
missing when I would just set org.slf4j.simpleLogger.showThreadName=true in
/conf/logging/simplelogger.properties? It seems too simple :)
But it seems to be showing me thread names to distinguish things by:
[main]
[BuilderThread 0]
[BuilderThread 1]
Et cetera...
Thanks, Sander.
Sander Verhagen
[ san...@sanderverhagen.net ]
NOTICE: my e-mail address has changed. Please remove verha...@sander.com now
and start using san...@sanderverhagen.net from now on. Please update your
address book. Thank you!
> -Original Message-
> From: Igor Fedorenko [mailto:i...@ifedorenko.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, June 09, 2015 12:15
> To: Maven Developers List; Sander Verhagen
> Subject: Re: logging during multithreaded builds (follow-up)
>
> Based on the feedback I got on this list I did not include the logger
> extension
> in maven itself but kept it in a separate repository. I may opensource that
> repository some time in the future but it is not a priority for me right now.
>
> --
> Regards,
> Igor
>
>
>
> On June 9, 2015 1:33:46 PM Sander Verhagen
> wrote:
>
> > Hi group,
> >
> >
> > Sorry if it's inappropriate for me to ask this in the dev list, but this is
> > where this was previously discussed. I'm interested in the work that Igor
> > mentioned around logging during multithreaded builds. It sounded like
> there
> > was an addition to Maven being built (whether it be in the core or some
> > extension). Is that somehow generally available, be it in released form or
> > as ("alpha") source code that I can build myself?
> >
> > Much appreciated,
> >
> >
> > Sander Verhagen
> > [ san...@sanderverhagen.net<mailto:san...@sanderverhagen.net> ]
>
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org
Re: logging during multithreaded builds (follow-up)
Based on the feedback I got on this list I did not include the logger
extension in maven itself but kept it in a separate repository. I may
opensource that repository some time in the future but it is not a priority
for me right now.
--
Regards,
Igor
On June 9, 2015 1:33:46 PM Sander Verhagen wrote:
Hi group,
Sorry if it's inappropriate for me to ask this in the dev list, but this is
where this was previously discussed. I'm interested in the work that Igor
mentioned around logging during multithreaded builds. It sounded like there
was an addition to Maven being built (whether it be in the core or some
extension). Is that somehow generally available, be it in released form or
as ("alpha") source code that I can build myself?
Much appreciated,
Sander Verhagen
[ san...@sanderverhagen.net ]
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org
Re: logging during multithreaded builds
I know it's not directly related, but any general purpose algorithm that captures to memory buffers needs an overflow to disk mechanism - every time a ByteArrayOutputStream is used for this, some guy with a *huge* output from his build gets an OOM. It's nice you're looking into this issue. As for the actual question of logger implementations, I prefer trivial problems like trying to determine that P=NP. Kristian 2015-05-28 8:39 GMT+02:00 Anders Hammar : > I agree with Jason, it would be better to keep this outside of core (the > core distro). > > /Anders > > On Thu, May 28, 2015 at 5:21 AM, Jason van Zyl wrote: > > > I honestly don't think an optional feature relying on an optional > > dependency belongs in the core itself. > > > > On May 27, 2015, at 10:34 PM, Igor Fedorenko > wrote: > > > > > There are three semi-related parts to my implementation > > > > > > 1. SLF4J MDC management, basically setting and removing project > > > attributes in a thread-local map. Truly reliable implementation will > > > need to be coded in all Builders. Alternatively, it should be possible > > > to use existing lifecycle callbacks to implement mostly reliable > lib/ext > > > extension. > > > > > > 2. Install and configure System out/err and java.util.logging bridges. > > > This can be implemented as lib/ext extension using existing callbacks > > > > > > 3. Custom logback appenders and configuration that provide > "interesting" > > > behaviour using SLF4J MDC. These too can be implemented of the core. > > > > > > Keeping all this in the core will allow marginally more reliable SLF4J > > > MDC management implementation and I also think will make it more likely > > > for other developers to help with the implementation. It will also > serve > > > as a working example for adding support for other logging framework. > But > > > I agree, this does not have to be implemented in the core so I'll try > to > > > rework my implementation as lib/ext extension. > > > > > > -- > > > Regards, > > > Igor > > > > > > On Wed, May 27, 2015, at 06:40 PM, Jason van Zyl wrote: > > >> > > >> On May 27, 2015, at 3:55 PM, Igor Fedorenko > > wrote: > > >> > > >>> So I went ahead and implemented these changes, including working (but > > >>> not terribly well tested) logback appenders to buffer-and-group > project > > >>> console log messages and create per-project build.log files. > > >>> > > >> > > >> What changes were required in the core? > > >> > > >>> Does anyone see a problem if I check in these appenders in maven core > > >>> source tree or you prefer me to keep them elsewhere? > > >>> > > >> > > >> If it's required to alter the distribution to install logback in order > > to > > >> use the appenders then I think elsewhere is more appropriate. As they > > >> won't be used by the standard version of Maven so I don't think it > > >> belongs in core along with the other modules. Maven shared is probably > > >> fine. > > >> > > >>> Just to be clear, I do not propose to "hardware" maven to logback > and I > > >>> do not propose to include logback support in maven distribution. I > want > > >>> to introduce new maven-ext-logback module, which users will be able > to > > >>> use to customize their maven distributions very much the same way > they > > >>> need to do it now to use any of the advanced logging frameworks. > > >>> > > >>> -- > > >>> Regards, > > >>> Igor > > >>> > > >>> On Tue, May 26, 2015, at 03:38 PM, Igor Fedorenko wrote: > > I spent some time looking into this, and I think project-level > logging > > will require several semi-related changes. > > > > * As Ralph pointed out, Maven needs to use SLF4J MDC to associate > log > > messages with individual projects being built. This is required to > > enable any project-related logging approach and I plan to submit > this > > change in next couple of days. > > > > * Another problem is use of non-slf4j logging techniques by Maven > > plugins. Direct use of System out/err and java.util.logging are two > > obvious problems and I plan to change maven to "bridge" these to > > slf4j. > > > > * The old log4j 1.x logging and commons-logging need to be bridged > to > > slf4j too. I can make this change in maven, but this is not strictly > > necessary because it can be done from lib/ext extension too. > > > > The rest really depends on whether we can agree on single "advanced" > > logging backend and if we need to support several logging > > configurations. I think we've found three viable project-level > logging > > approaches: buffered console output, better logging pattern and my > > original target/build.log idea. Unless somebody really wants to > > restart > > logback-vs-log4j discussion, I suggest we postpone this decision and > > instead implement project-level logging as out-of-core extensions. > > > > Does this make sense? > > > > -- > > Regards
Re: logging during multithreaded builds
I agree with Jason, it would be better to keep this outside of core (the
core distro).
/Anders
On Thu, May 28, 2015 at 5:21 AM, Jason van Zyl wrote:
> I honestly don't think an optional feature relying on an optional
> dependency belongs in the core itself.
>
> On May 27, 2015, at 10:34 PM, Igor Fedorenko wrote:
>
> > There are three semi-related parts to my implementation
> >
> > 1. SLF4J MDC management, basically setting and removing project
> > attributes in a thread-local map. Truly reliable implementation will
> > need to be coded in all Builders. Alternatively, it should be possible
> > to use existing lifecycle callbacks to implement mostly reliable lib/ext
> > extension.
> >
> > 2. Install and configure System out/err and java.util.logging bridges.
> > This can be implemented as lib/ext extension using existing callbacks
> >
> > 3. Custom logback appenders and configuration that provide "interesting"
> > behaviour using SLF4J MDC. These too can be implemented of the core.
> >
> > Keeping all this in the core will allow marginally more reliable SLF4J
> > MDC management implementation and I also think will make it more likely
> > for other developers to help with the implementation. It will also serve
> > as a working example for adding support for other logging framework. But
> > I agree, this does not have to be implemented in the core so I'll try to
> > rework my implementation as lib/ext extension.
> >
> > --
> > Regards,
> > Igor
> >
> > On Wed, May 27, 2015, at 06:40 PM, Jason van Zyl wrote:
> >>
> >> On May 27, 2015, at 3:55 PM, Igor Fedorenko
> wrote:
> >>
> >>> So I went ahead and implemented these changes, including working (but
> >>> not terribly well tested) logback appenders to buffer-and-group project
> >>> console log messages and create per-project build.log files.
> >>>
> >>
> >> What changes were required in the core?
> >>
> >>> Does anyone see a problem if I check in these appenders in maven core
> >>> source tree or you prefer me to keep them elsewhere?
> >>>
> >>
> >> If it's required to alter the distribution to install logback in order
> to
> >> use the appenders then I think elsewhere is more appropriate. As they
> >> won't be used by the standard version of Maven so I don't think it
> >> belongs in core along with the other modules. Maven shared is probably
> >> fine.
> >>
> >>> Just to be clear, I do not propose to "hardware" maven to logback and I
> >>> do not propose to include logback support in maven distribution. I want
> >>> to introduce new maven-ext-logback module, which users will be able to
> >>> use to customize their maven distributions very much the same way they
> >>> need to do it now to use any of the advanced logging frameworks.
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>> Regards,
> >>> Igor
> >>>
> >>> On Tue, May 26, 2015, at 03:38 PM, Igor Fedorenko wrote:
> I spent some time looking into this, and I think project-level logging
> will require several semi-related changes.
>
> * As Ralph pointed out, Maven needs to use SLF4J MDC to associate log
> messages with individual projects being built. This is required to
> enable any project-related logging approach and I plan to submit this
> change in next couple of days.
>
> * Another problem is use of non-slf4j logging techniques by Maven
> plugins. Direct use of System out/err and java.util.logging are two
> obvious problems and I plan to change maven to "bridge" these to
> slf4j.
>
> * The old log4j 1.x logging and commons-logging need to be bridged to
> slf4j too. I can make this change in maven, but this is not strictly
> necessary because it can be done from lib/ext extension too.
>
> The rest really depends on whether we can agree on single "advanced"
> logging backend and if we need to support several logging
> configurations. I think we've found three viable project-level logging
> approaches: buffered console output, better logging pattern and my
> original target/build.log idea. Unless somebody really wants to
> restart
> logback-vs-log4j discussion, I suggest we postpone this decision and
> instead implement project-level logging as out-of-core extensions.
>
> Does this make sense?
>
> --
> Regards,
> Igor
>
> On Tue, May 26, 2015, at 01:13 PM, Ralph Goers wrote:
> > If you use the SLF4J MDC - which is supported by Logback, Log4j 1.x
> and
> > 2.x - you can include anything stored in the MDC on every line of log
> > output. Just use %X to include all MDC items or %MDC{key} to
> include the
> > specific key. This would require storing the value(s) at the
> beginning
> > of every thread.
> >
> > If you include %t in the pattern than every log line should include
> the
> > threadId.
> >
> > If you are saying that the log lines include newlines in them that
> should
> > still be OK. The only way the lines should be mangled
Re: logging during multithreaded builds
I honestly don't think an optional feature relying on an optional dependency
belongs in the core itself.
On May 27, 2015, at 10:34 PM, Igor Fedorenko wrote:
> There are three semi-related parts to my implementation
>
> 1. SLF4J MDC management, basically setting and removing project
> attributes in a thread-local map. Truly reliable implementation will
> need to be coded in all Builders. Alternatively, it should be possible
> to use existing lifecycle callbacks to implement mostly reliable lib/ext
> extension.
>
> 2. Install and configure System out/err and java.util.logging bridges.
> This can be implemented as lib/ext extension using existing callbacks
>
> 3. Custom logback appenders and configuration that provide "interesting"
> behaviour using SLF4J MDC. These too can be implemented of the core.
>
> Keeping all this in the core will allow marginally more reliable SLF4J
> MDC management implementation and I also think will make it more likely
> for other developers to help with the implementation. It will also serve
> as a working example for adding support for other logging framework. But
> I agree, this does not have to be implemented in the core so I'll try to
> rework my implementation as lib/ext extension.
>
> --
> Regards,
> Igor
>
> On Wed, May 27, 2015, at 06:40 PM, Jason van Zyl wrote:
>>
>> On May 27, 2015, at 3:55 PM, Igor Fedorenko wrote:
>>
>>> So I went ahead and implemented these changes, including working (but
>>> not terribly well tested) logback appenders to buffer-and-group project
>>> console log messages and create per-project build.log files.
>>>
>>
>> What changes were required in the core?
>>
>>> Does anyone see a problem if I check in these appenders in maven core
>>> source tree or you prefer me to keep them elsewhere?
>>>
>>
>> If it's required to alter the distribution to install logback in order to
>> use the appenders then I think elsewhere is more appropriate. As they
>> won't be used by the standard version of Maven so I don't think it
>> belongs in core along with the other modules. Maven shared is probably
>> fine.
>>
>>> Just to be clear, I do not propose to "hardware" maven to logback and I
>>> do not propose to include logback support in maven distribution. I want
>>> to introduce new maven-ext-logback module, which users will be able to
>>> use to customize their maven distributions very much the same way they
>>> need to do it now to use any of the advanced logging frameworks.
>>>
>>> --
>>> Regards,
>>> Igor
>>>
>>> On Tue, May 26, 2015, at 03:38 PM, Igor Fedorenko wrote:
I spent some time looking into this, and I think project-level logging
will require several semi-related changes.
* As Ralph pointed out, Maven needs to use SLF4J MDC to associate log
messages with individual projects being built. This is required to
enable any project-related logging approach and I plan to submit this
change in next couple of days.
* Another problem is use of non-slf4j logging techniques by Maven
plugins. Direct use of System out/err and java.util.logging are two
obvious problems and I plan to change maven to "bridge" these to slf4j.
* The old log4j 1.x logging and commons-logging need to be bridged to
slf4j too. I can make this change in maven, but this is not strictly
necessary because it can be done from lib/ext extension too.
The rest really depends on whether we can agree on single "advanced"
logging backend and if we need to support several logging
configurations. I think we've found three viable project-level logging
approaches: buffered console output, better logging pattern and my
original target/build.log idea. Unless somebody really wants to restart
logback-vs-log4j discussion, I suggest we postpone this decision and
instead implement project-level logging as out-of-core extensions.
Does this make sense?
--
Regards,
Igor
On Tue, May 26, 2015, at 01:13 PM, Ralph Goers wrote:
> If you use the SLF4J MDC - which is supported by Logback, Log4j 1.x and
> 2.x - you can include anything stored in the MDC on every line of log
> output. Just use %X to include all MDC items or %MDC{key} to include the
> specific key. This would require storing the value(s) at the beginning
> of every thread.
>
> If you include %t in the pattern than every log line should include the
> threadId.
>
> If you are saying that the log lines include newlines in them that should
> still be OK. The only way the lines should be mangled is if each thread
> somehow has its own instance of the logging framework and they are all
> configured to write to the same file.
>
> Ralph
>
>
>
>> On May 25, 2015, at 7:28 AM, Igor Fedorenko wrote:
>>
>> Yes, thread-id will help to some degree, but maven uses multiline log
>> messages quite
Re: logging during multithreaded builds
There are three semi-related parts to my implementation
1. SLF4J MDC management, basically setting and removing project
attributes in a thread-local map. Truly reliable implementation will
need to be coded in all Builders. Alternatively, it should be possible
to use existing lifecycle callbacks to implement mostly reliable lib/ext
extension.
2. Install and configure System out/err and java.util.logging bridges.
This can be implemented as lib/ext extension using existing callbacks
3. Custom logback appenders and configuration that provide "interesting"
behaviour using SLF4J MDC. These too can be implemented of the core.
Keeping all this in the core will allow marginally more reliable SLF4J
MDC management implementation and I also think will make it more likely
for other developers to help with the implementation. It will also serve
as a working example for adding support for other logging framework. But
I agree, this does not have to be implemented in the core so I'll try to
rework my implementation as lib/ext extension.
--
Regards,
Igor
On Wed, May 27, 2015, at 06:40 PM, Jason van Zyl wrote:
>
> On May 27, 2015, at 3:55 PM, Igor Fedorenko wrote:
>
> > So I went ahead and implemented these changes, including working (but
> > not terribly well tested) logback appenders to buffer-and-group project
> > console log messages and create per-project build.log files.
> >
>
> What changes were required in the core?
>
> > Does anyone see a problem if I check in these appenders in maven core
> > source tree or you prefer me to keep them elsewhere?
> >
>
> If it's required to alter the distribution to install logback in order to
> use the appenders then I think elsewhere is more appropriate. As they
> won't be used by the standard version of Maven so I don't think it
> belongs in core along with the other modules. Maven shared is probably
> fine.
>
> > Just to be clear, I do not propose to "hardware" maven to logback and I
> > do not propose to include logback support in maven distribution. I want
> > to introduce new maven-ext-logback module, which users will be able to
> > use to customize their maven distributions very much the same way they
> > need to do it now to use any of the advanced logging frameworks.
> >
> > --
> > Regards,
> > Igor
> >
> > On Tue, May 26, 2015, at 03:38 PM, Igor Fedorenko wrote:
> >> I spent some time looking into this, and I think project-level logging
> >> will require several semi-related changes.
> >>
> >> * As Ralph pointed out, Maven needs to use SLF4J MDC to associate log
> >> messages with individual projects being built. This is required to
> >> enable any project-related logging approach and I plan to submit this
> >> change in next couple of days.
> >>
> >> * Another problem is use of non-slf4j logging techniques by Maven
> >> plugins. Direct use of System out/err and java.util.logging are two
> >> obvious problems and I plan to change maven to "bridge" these to slf4j.
> >>
> >> * The old log4j 1.x logging and commons-logging need to be bridged to
> >> slf4j too. I can make this change in maven, but this is not strictly
> >> necessary because it can be done from lib/ext extension too.
> >>
> >> The rest really depends on whether we can agree on single "advanced"
> >> logging backend and if we need to support several logging
> >> configurations. I think we've found three viable project-level logging
> >> approaches: buffered console output, better logging pattern and my
> >> original target/build.log idea. Unless somebody really wants to restart
> >> logback-vs-log4j discussion, I suggest we postpone this decision and
> >> instead implement project-level logging as out-of-core extensions.
> >>
> >> Does this make sense?
> >>
> >> --
> >> Regards,
> >> Igor
> >>
> >> On Tue, May 26, 2015, at 01:13 PM, Ralph Goers wrote:
> >>> If you use the SLF4J MDC - which is supported by Logback, Log4j 1.x and
> >>> 2.x - you can include anything stored in the MDC on every line of log
> >>> output. Just use %X to include all MDC items or %MDC{key} to include the
> >>> specific key. This would require storing the value(s) at the beginning
> >>> of every thread.
> >>>
> >>> If you include %t in the pattern than every log line should include the
> >>> threadId.
> >>>
> >>> If you are saying that the log lines include newlines in them that should
> >>> still be OK. The only way the lines should be mangled is if each thread
> >>> somehow has its own instance of the logging framework and they are all
> >>> configured to write to the same file.
> >>>
> >>> Ralph
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> On May 25, 2015, at 7:28 AM, Igor Fedorenko wrote:
>
> Yes, thread-id will help to some degree, but maven uses multiline log
> messages quite often and these will still be mangled and unreadable.
> Per-project build log files is the only solution I found to preserve
> readable logs. Also, each project build is mostly independent from the
> rest and I
Re: logging during multithreaded builds
On May 27, 2015, at 3:55 PM, Igor Fedorenko wrote:
> So I went ahead and implemented these changes, including working (but
> not terribly well tested) logback appenders to buffer-and-group project
> console log messages and create per-project build.log files.
>
What changes were required in the core?
> Does anyone see a problem if I check in these appenders in maven core
> source tree or you prefer me to keep them elsewhere?
>
If it's required to alter the distribution to install logback in order to use
the appenders then I think elsewhere is more appropriate. As they won't be used
by the standard version of Maven so I don't think it belongs in core along with
the other modules. Maven shared is probably fine.
> Just to be clear, I do not propose to "hardware" maven to logback and I
> do not propose to include logback support in maven distribution. I want
> to introduce new maven-ext-logback module, which users will be able to
> use to customize their maven distributions very much the same way they
> need to do it now to use any of the advanced logging frameworks.
>
> --
> Regards,
> Igor
>
> On Tue, May 26, 2015, at 03:38 PM, Igor Fedorenko wrote:
>> I spent some time looking into this, and I think project-level logging
>> will require several semi-related changes.
>>
>> * As Ralph pointed out, Maven needs to use SLF4J MDC to associate log
>> messages with individual projects being built. This is required to
>> enable any project-related logging approach and I plan to submit this
>> change in next couple of days.
>>
>> * Another problem is use of non-slf4j logging techniques by Maven
>> plugins. Direct use of System out/err and java.util.logging are two
>> obvious problems and I plan to change maven to "bridge" these to slf4j.
>>
>> * The old log4j 1.x logging and commons-logging need to be bridged to
>> slf4j too. I can make this change in maven, but this is not strictly
>> necessary because it can be done from lib/ext extension too.
>>
>> The rest really depends on whether we can agree on single "advanced"
>> logging backend and if we need to support several logging
>> configurations. I think we've found three viable project-level logging
>> approaches: buffered console output, better logging pattern and my
>> original target/build.log idea. Unless somebody really wants to restart
>> logback-vs-log4j discussion, I suggest we postpone this decision and
>> instead implement project-level logging as out-of-core extensions.
>>
>> Does this make sense?
>>
>> --
>> Regards,
>> Igor
>>
>> On Tue, May 26, 2015, at 01:13 PM, Ralph Goers wrote:
>>> If you use the SLF4J MDC - which is supported by Logback, Log4j 1.x and
>>> 2.x - you can include anything stored in the MDC on every line of log
>>> output. Just use %X to include all MDC items or %MDC{key} to include the
>>> specific key. This would require storing the value(s) at the beginning
>>> of every thread.
>>>
>>> If you include %t in the pattern than every log line should include the
>>> threadId.
>>>
>>> If you are saying that the log lines include newlines in them that should
>>> still be OK. The only way the lines should be mangled is if each thread
>>> somehow has its own instance of the logging framework and they are all
>>> configured to write to the same file.
>>>
>>> Ralph
>>>
>>>
>>>
On May 25, 2015, at 7:28 AM, Igor Fedorenko wrote:
Yes, thread-id will help to some degree, but maven uses multiline log
messages quite often and these will still be mangled and unreadable.
Per-project build log files is the only solution I found to preserve
readable logs. Also, each project build is mostly independent from the
rest and I find reading self-contain per-project log files much easier.
--
Regards,
Igor
On Mon, May 25, 2015, at 10:21 AM, Sean Busbey wrote:
> In multithreaded builds we could add a thread ID to each output line.
> That
> would make it easier to read and filter in different files in post
> processing.
>
> --
> Sean
> On May 25, 2015 6:30 AM, "Igor Fedorenko" wrote:
>
>> I had to troubleshoot a large multithreaded build last week and that
>> proved to be rather difficult mostly because build log was a jumble of
>> messages produced by concurrently running threads. It was not possible
>> to tell which message came from which thread, which made the build log
>> more or less useless.
>>
>> What I ended up doing was to write per-module log message to individual
>> ${project.build.directory}/build.log log files.
>>
>> That was kinda tricky to implement because log files were opened very
>> early during module build and were subsequently deleted by
>> maven-clean-plugin (I tried on Linux and OSX, and I assume the build
>> will fail on Windows). I had to modify maven-clean-plugin configuration
>> in the project pom.xml to retain ${project.build.directory
Re: logging during multithreaded builds
So I went ahead and implemented these changes, including working (but
not terribly well tested) logback appenders to buffer-and-group project
console log messages and create per-project build.log files.
Does anyone see a problem if I check in these appenders in maven core
source tree or you prefer me to keep them elsewhere?
Just to be clear, I do not propose to "hardware" maven to logback and I
do not propose to include logback support in maven distribution. I want
to introduce new maven-ext-logback module, which users will be able to
use to customize their maven distributions very much the same way they
need to do it now to use any of the advanced logging frameworks.
--
Regards,
Igor
On Tue, May 26, 2015, at 03:38 PM, Igor Fedorenko wrote:
> I spent some time looking into this, and I think project-level logging
> will require several semi-related changes.
>
> * As Ralph pointed out, Maven needs to use SLF4J MDC to associate log
> messages with individual projects being built. This is required to
> enable any project-related logging approach and I plan to submit this
> change in next couple of days.
>
> * Another problem is use of non-slf4j logging techniques by Maven
> plugins. Direct use of System out/err and java.util.logging are two
> obvious problems and I plan to change maven to "bridge" these to slf4j.
>
> * The old log4j 1.x logging and commons-logging need to be bridged to
> slf4j too. I can make this change in maven, but this is not strictly
> necessary because it can be done from lib/ext extension too.
>
> The rest really depends on whether we can agree on single "advanced"
> logging backend and if we need to support several logging
> configurations. I think we've found three viable project-level logging
> approaches: buffered console output, better logging pattern and my
> original target/build.log idea. Unless somebody really wants to restart
> logback-vs-log4j discussion, I suggest we postpone this decision and
> instead implement project-level logging as out-of-core extensions.
>
> Does this make sense?
>
> --
> Regards,
> Igor
>
> On Tue, May 26, 2015, at 01:13 PM, Ralph Goers wrote:
> > If you use the SLF4J MDC - which is supported by Logback, Log4j 1.x and
> > 2.x - you can include anything stored in the MDC on every line of log
> > output. Just use %X to include all MDC items or %MDC{key} to include the
> > specific key. This would require storing the value(s) at the beginning
> > of every thread.
> >
> > If you include %t in the pattern than every log line should include the
> > threadId.
> >
> > If you are saying that the log lines include newlines in them that should
> > still be OK. The only way the lines should be mangled is if each thread
> > somehow has its own instance of the logging framework and they are all
> > configured to write to the same file.
> >
> > Ralph
> >
> >
> >
> > > On May 25, 2015, at 7:28 AM, Igor Fedorenko wrote:
> > >
> > > Yes, thread-id will help to some degree, but maven uses multiline log
> > > messages quite often and these will still be mangled and unreadable.
> > > Per-project build log files is the only solution I found to preserve
> > > readable logs. Also, each project build is mostly independent from the
> > > rest and I find reading self-contain per-project log files much easier.
> > >
> > > --
> > > Regards,
> > > Igor
> > >
> > > On Mon, May 25, 2015, at 10:21 AM, Sean Busbey wrote:
> > >> In multithreaded builds we could add a thread ID to each output line.
> > >> That
> > >> would make it easier to read and filter in different files in post
> > >> processing.
> > >>
> > >> --
> > >> Sean
> > >> On May 25, 2015 6:30 AM, "Igor Fedorenko" wrote:
> > >>
> > >>> I had to troubleshoot a large multithreaded build last week and that
> > >>> proved to be rather difficult mostly because build log was a jumble of
> > >>> messages produced by concurrently running threads. It was not possible
> > >>> to tell which message came from which thread, which made the build log
> > >>> more or less useless.
> > >>>
> > >>> What I ended up doing was to write per-module log message to individual
> > >>> ${project.build.directory}/build.log log files.
> > >>>
> > >>> That was kinda tricky to implement because log files were opened very
> > >>> early during module build and were subsequently deleted by
> > >>> maven-clean-plugin (I tried on Linux and OSX, and I assume the build
> > >>> will fail on Windows). I had to modify maven-clean-plugin configuration
> > >>> in the project pom.xml to retain ${project.build.directory}/build.log
> > >>> files.
> > >>>
> > >>> I felt my solution required too my effort and I wonder what others do to
> > >>> capture logs during multithreaded builds. Can we come up with a
> > >>> "recommended" way of doing this?
> > >>>
> > >>> --
> > >>> Regards,
> > >>> Igor
> > >>>
> > >>> -
> > >>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven
Re: logging during multithreaded builds
I spent some time looking into this, and I think project-level logging
will require several semi-related changes.
* As Ralph pointed out, Maven needs to use SLF4J MDC to associate log
messages with individual projects being built. This is required to
enable any project-related logging approach and I plan to submit this
change in next couple of days.
* Another problem is use of non-slf4j logging techniques by Maven
plugins. Direct use of System out/err and java.util.logging are two
obvious problems and I plan to change maven to "bridge" these to slf4j.
* The old log4j 1.x logging and commons-logging need to be bridged to
slf4j too. I can make this change in maven, but this is not strictly
necessary because it can be done from lib/ext extension too.
The rest really depends on whether we can agree on single "advanced"
logging backend and if we need to support several logging
configurations. I think we've found three viable project-level logging
approaches: buffered console output, better logging pattern and my
original target/build.log idea. Unless somebody really wants to restart
logback-vs-log4j discussion, I suggest we postpone this decision and
instead implement project-level logging as out-of-core extensions.
Does this make sense?
--
Regards,
Igor
On Tue, May 26, 2015, at 01:13 PM, Ralph Goers wrote:
> If you use the SLF4J MDC - which is supported by Logback, Log4j 1.x and
> 2.x - you can include anything stored in the MDC on every line of log
> output. Just use %X to include all MDC items or %MDC{key} to include the
> specific key. This would require storing the value(s) at the beginning
> of every thread.
>
> If you include %t in the pattern than every log line should include the
> threadId.
>
> If you are saying that the log lines include newlines in them that should
> still be OK. The only way the lines should be mangled is if each thread
> somehow has its own instance of the logging framework and they are all
> configured to write to the same file.
>
> Ralph
>
>
>
> > On May 25, 2015, at 7:28 AM, Igor Fedorenko wrote:
> >
> > Yes, thread-id will help to some degree, but maven uses multiline log
> > messages quite often and these will still be mangled and unreadable.
> > Per-project build log files is the only solution I found to preserve
> > readable logs. Also, each project build is mostly independent from the
> > rest and I find reading self-contain per-project log files much easier.
> >
> > --
> > Regards,
> > Igor
> >
> > On Mon, May 25, 2015, at 10:21 AM, Sean Busbey wrote:
> >> In multithreaded builds we could add a thread ID to each output line.
> >> That
> >> would make it easier to read and filter in different files in post
> >> processing.
> >>
> >> --
> >> Sean
> >> On May 25, 2015 6:30 AM, "Igor Fedorenko" wrote:
> >>
> >>> I had to troubleshoot a large multithreaded build last week and that
> >>> proved to be rather difficult mostly because build log was a jumble of
> >>> messages produced by concurrently running threads. It was not possible
> >>> to tell which message came from which thread, which made the build log
> >>> more or less useless.
> >>>
> >>> What I ended up doing was to write per-module log message to individual
> >>> ${project.build.directory}/build.log log files.
> >>>
> >>> That was kinda tricky to implement because log files were opened very
> >>> early during module build and were subsequently deleted by
> >>> maven-clean-plugin (I tried on Linux and OSX, and I assume the build
> >>> will fail on Windows). I had to modify maven-clean-plugin configuration
> >>> in the project pom.xml to retain ${project.build.directory}/build.log
> >>> files.
> >>>
> >>> I felt my solution required too my effort and I wonder what others do to
> >>> capture logs during multithreaded builds. Can we come up with a
> >>> "recommended" way of doing this?
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>> Regards,
> >>> Igor
> >>>
> >>> -
> >>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org
> >>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org
> >>>
> >>>
> >
> > -
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org
> >
>
>
>
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org
>
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org
Re: logging during multithreaded builds
If you use the SLF4J MDC - which is supported by Logback, Log4j 1.x and 2.x -
you can include anything stored in the MDC on every line of log output. Just
use %X to include all MDC items or %MDC{key} to include the specific key. This
would require storing the value(s) at the beginning of every thread.
If you include %t in the pattern than every log line should include the
threadId.
If you are saying that the log lines include newlines in them that should still
be OK. The only way the lines should be mangled is if each thread somehow has
its own instance of the logging framework and they are all configured to write
to the same file.
Ralph
> On May 25, 2015, at 7:28 AM, Igor Fedorenko wrote:
>
> Yes, thread-id will help to some degree, but maven uses multiline log
> messages quite often and these will still be mangled and unreadable.
> Per-project build log files is the only solution I found to preserve
> readable logs. Also, each project build is mostly independent from the
> rest and I find reading self-contain per-project log files much easier.
>
> --
> Regards,
> Igor
>
> On Mon, May 25, 2015, at 10:21 AM, Sean Busbey wrote:
>> In multithreaded builds we could add a thread ID to each output line.
>> That
>> would make it easier to read and filter in different files in post
>> processing.
>>
>> --
>> Sean
>> On May 25, 2015 6:30 AM, "Igor Fedorenko" wrote:
>>
>>> I had to troubleshoot a large multithreaded build last week and that
>>> proved to be rather difficult mostly because build log was a jumble of
>>> messages produced by concurrently running threads. It was not possible
>>> to tell which message came from which thread, which made the build log
>>> more or less useless.
>>>
>>> What I ended up doing was to write per-module log message to individual
>>> ${project.build.directory}/build.log log files.
>>>
>>> That was kinda tricky to implement because log files were opened very
>>> early during module build and were subsequently deleted by
>>> maven-clean-plugin (I tried on Linux and OSX, and I assume the build
>>> will fail on Windows). I had to modify maven-clean-plugin configuration
>>> in the project pom.xml to retain ${project.build.directory}/build.log
>>> files.
>>>
>>> I felt my solution required too my effort and I wonder what others do to
>>> capture logs during multithreaded builds. Can we come up with a
>>> "recommended" way of doing this?
>>>
>>> --
>>> Regards,
>>> Igor
>>>
>>> -
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org
>>>
>>>
>
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org
>
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org
Re: logging during multithreaded builds
Igor Fedorenko wrote on 05/25/2015 07:28:45 AM:
> I had to troubleshoot a large multithreaded build last week and that
> proved to be rather difficult mostly because build log was a jumble of
> messages produced by concurrently running threads. It was not possible
> to tell which message came from which thread, which made the build log
> more or less useless.
>
> What I ended up doing was to write per-module log message to individual
> ${project.build.directory}/build.log log files.
>
> That was kinda tricky to implement because log files were opened very
> early during module build and were subsequently deleted by
> maven-clean-plugin (I tried on Linux and OSX, and I assume the build
> will fail on Windows). I had to modify maven-clean-plugin configuration
> in the project pom.xml to retain ${project.build.directory}/build.log
> files.
>
> I felt my solution required too my effort and I wonder what others do to
> capture logs during multithreaded builds. Can we come up with a
> "recommended" way of doing this?
In my Ant days we had a similar problem. I ended up writing a thread-aware
logging implementation that would buffer log messages in memory, then
flush meaningful sections when a logging context ended. The logs ended up
being out-of-order when viewed strictly as a time sequence, but the
sections did make sense and allowed someone to follow in a coherent manner
what happened in a particular context during the build.
I tried to do something similar when I changed teams and we were using
Maven, but frankly the Ant API for plugging in loggers & listeners was
easier to work with. I'm currently working on thread-aware event spies for
performance profiling & would be happy to work on a thread aware logger as
well if there is interest.
Re: logging during multithreaded builds
Yes, thread-id will help to some degree, but maven uses multiline log
messages quite often and these will still be mangled and unreadable.
Per-project build log files is the only solution I found to preserve
readable logs. Also, each project build is mostly independent from the
rest and I find reading self-contain per-project log files much easier.
--
Regards,
Igor
On Mon, May 25, 2015, at 10:21 AM, Sean Busbey wrote:
> In multithreaded builds we could add a thread ID to each output line.
> That
> would make it easier to read and filter in different files in post
> processing.
>
> --
> Sean
> On May 25, 2015 6:30 AM, "Igor Fedorenko" wrote:
>
> > I had to troubleshoot a large multithreaded build last week and that
> > proved to be rather difficult mostly because build log was a jumble of
> > messages produced by concurrently running threads. It was not possible
> > to tell which message came from which thread, which made the build log
> > more or less useless.
> >
> > What I ended up doing was to write per-module log message to individual
> > ${project.build.directory}/build.log log files.
> >
> > That was kinda tricky to implement because log files were opened very
> > early during module build and were subsequently deleted by
> > maven-clean-plugin (I tried on Linux and OSX, and I assume the build
> > will fail on Windows). I had to modify maven-clean-plugin configuration
> > in the project pom.xml to retain ${project.build.directory}/build.log
> > files.
> >
> > I felt my solution required too my effort and I wonder what others do to
> > capture logs during multithreaded builds. Can we come up with a
> > "recommended" way of doing this?
> >
> > --
> > Regards,
> > Igor
> >
> > -
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org
> >
> >
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org
Re: logging during multithreaded builds
In multithreaded builds we could add a thread ID to each output line. That
would make it easier to read and filter in different files in post
processing.
--
Sean
On May 25, 2015 6:30 AM, "Igor Fedorenko" wrote:
> I had to troubleshoot a large multithreaded build last week and that
> proved to be rather difficult mostly because build log was a jumble of
> messages produced by concurrently running threads. It was not possible
> to tell which message came from which thread, which made the build log
> more or less useless.
>
> What I ended up doing was to write per-module log message to individual
> ${project.build.directory}/build.log log files.
>
> That was kinda tricky to implement because log files were opened very
> early during module build and were subsequently deleted by
> maven-clean-plugin (I tried on Linux and OSX, and I assume the build
> will fail on Windows). I had to modify maven-clean-plugin configuration
> in the project pom.xml to retain ${project.build.directory}/build.log
> files.
>
> I felt my solution required too my effort and I wonder what others do to
> capture logs during multithreaded builds. Can we come up with a
> "recommended" way of doing this?
>
> --
> Regards,
> Igor
>
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org
>
>
