Being a devil's advocate here, I'd like to point out that the particular
example given:
>logger.log(level, () -> String.format(...));
is better done through an API like this one:
logger.logf(level, fmt, ...);
which would in fact allow for the possibility of localization (using the
fo
e: RFR 2: JDK-8005263: Logging
APIs takes Supplier for message
> From: henry@oracle.com
> Date: Fri, 28 Dec 2012 16:11:02 -0800
> CC: brian.go...@oracle.com; lambda-...@openjdk.java.net;
> core-libs-dev@openjdk.java.net
> To: jason_mehr...@hotmail.com
>
> Jason,
>
&
On Dec 28, 2012, at 4:11 PM, Henry Jen wrote:
> Next version I'll enable defer message construction until Logger filter check.
>
On a second thought and after more reading into logging code in JDK, it seems
like Filter is mostly applied to Handler instead of Logger, thus it's not
really that
f I created a working proof of concept would that change
> anything or is this patch a done deal?
>
> Jason
>> Subject: Re: RFR 2: JDK-8005263: Logging APIs takes Supplier for
>> message
>> From: henry@oracle.com
>> Date: Thu, 27 Dec 2012 18:24:17 -0800
>> CC: b
messages that led up to the error. That was the technique used to reopen bug
id 6840067. If I created a working proof of concept would that change anything
or is this patch a done deal?
Jason
> Subject: Re: RFR 2: JDK-8005263: Logging APIs takes Supplier for
> message
> From: henry@o
As stated in the beginning of the review thread, the reason we don't have
Supplier version for other API is that a formatter is involved and can achieve
same laziness easily.
The key is MessageFormatter can take arguments, which will be used to generate
the output. As there is no directly suppo
And to save creation of a helper object, LogRecordFactory could be an
interface implemented by LogRecord...
Peter
On 12/28/2012 01:42 AM, Peter Levart wrote:
What about the following API:
public class LogRecordFactory {
private final Level level;
public LogRecordFactory(Level level)
What about the following API:
public class LogRecordFactory {
private final Level level;
public LogRecordFactory(Level level) {
this.level = level;
}
public LogRecord create(String msg) {
return new LogRecord(level, msg);
}
public LogRecord create(Strin
Brian,
It's on my list too for lambdafying I just disagree with current
implementation. I understand and agree that having to create a guard should
not be required. It's awful to have to do. The point is that patch is still
way too eager because you don't want to evaluate a message u
I think a significant fraction of the community would disagree with you.
We ran a survey where we collected suggestions for lambdafying API
methods, and this one came in top of the list.
There is a significant fraction of the developer community that uses the
logging API and doesn't care at a
Henry,
Please don't apply this patch. This patch and the suggested workarounds are
still an anti-pattern of the logging API. You don't want to encourage this
type of on the fly message construction because it can't be localized. Even
Netbeans has a code hint to undo this pattern tha
On 12/22/2012 07:30 AM, Jason Mehrens wrote:
> The msg argument in most cases is a string literal because it is either
> a resource bundle key or a MessageFormat literal. The established best
> practice is to convert on the fly construction of messages to use
> the MessageFormat syle logging. Thi
The msg argument in most cases is a string literal because it is either a
resource bundle key or a MessageFormat literal. The established best practice
is to convert on the fly construction of messages to use the MessageFormat syle
logging. This current patch is kind of anti-pattern of that p
On 12/22/2012 12:13 PM, Peter Levart wrote:
Hi Henry,
Plain and simple.
yes,
I just noticed a few spellings:
line 670, 696, 863: "Thus is it" -> "Thus it is" - this one has
already been written wrong in the original source, so it just
multiplied by copy-paste
line 688, 743, 854: "Log
Hi Henry,
Plain and simple.
I just noticed a few spellings:
line 670, 696, 863: "Thus is it" -> "Thus it is" - this one has
already been written wrong in the original source, so it just multiplied
by copy-paste
line 688, 743, 854: "Log a in-time" -> "Log an in-time"
Regards, Peter
On 12/
15 matches
Mail list logo
