Hello, I bump this one as since a while we have slf4j as a dependency. Regards Philippe
On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 11:01 PM, sebb <seb...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 22 August 2012 23:44, Philippe Mouawad <philippe.moua...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > Last try to convince you :-) > > > > On Thursday, August 23, 2012, sebb wrote: > > > >> On 22 August 2012 21:43, Philippe Mouawad <philippe.moua...@gmail.com > <javascript:;>> > >> wrote: > >> > On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 7:21 PM, sebb <seb...@gmail.com<javascript:;>> > >> wrote: > >> > > >> >> On 22 August 2012 17:52, Milamber <milam...@apache.org<javascript:;>> > >> wrote: > >> >> > On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 4:34 PM, Philippe Mouawad < > >> >> > philippe.moua...@gmail.com <javascript:;>> wrote: > >> >> > > >> >> >> Restarting the discussion about logger. > >> >> >> > >> >> >> I agree with sebb java.util.logging is not great compared to > >> >> slf4j/logback > >> >> >> , log4j or commons-logging. > >> >> >> > >> >> >> My opinion is slf4j/logback would be the best choice as it's: > >> >> >> > >> >> >> - the most up to date > >> >> >> - is the next evolution of LOG4J for logback > >> >> >> - was build from commons-logging experience for SLF4J > >> >> >> - logback seems to have more features than log4j > >> >> >> > >> >> > >> >> I don't see the point of replacing the existing logging. > >> >> What benefit would we get? > >> >> > >> > Does current implementation support MDC or NDC ? > >> > >> No idea what they are. > >> > >> > > > > > > > http://veerasundar.com/blog/2009/11/log4j-mdc-mapped-diagnostic-context-example-code/ > > I see, basically a map of variables that can be added to log messages. > > > http://stackoverflow.com/search?q=%5Blog4j%5D+%2BMDC > > > > > > Milamber wrote an article but it's in french. > > > >> > Oth > > > > er features I see: > >> > > >> > - Parameterized log messages : > >> > http://slf4j.org/faq.html#logging_performance > >> > >> We already use the if enabled wrappers. > >> > >> More powerful as not String concat and cleaner logging > > > >> - Marker objects : see > >> > - > >> > > >> > http://stackoverflow.com/questions/10766411/overriding-the-logging-methods-logger-warn-in-slf4j > >> , > >> > > >> > - http://logback.qos.ch/manual/layouts.html#Evaluators > >> > >> Do we really need this functionality? > >> Looks rather complicated to me. > >> > >> It could be helpful for debugging thread related issues > > > >> > >> > > >> > What's wrong with the existing functionality? > >> >> > >> > it is based on a retired project (Excalibur). It kind of hurts me. > >> > >> Irrelevant if it works. > > > Yes but don't you think it is a bad thing to have libraries in End Of Life ? It like using JDK1.4 no ? > > > > I disagree. For dev committers and contributors it's important to have > Up > > to date and documented APi with lots of resources ( stackoverflow) > > There are plenty of examples of the use of logging in the code. > Anyone who glances at more than a few classes will see how logging is used. > > > For new comers, they will look at what Libraries are used, too old ones > car > > fear or can be a negative point. > > I don't agree. > Equally if a brand-new library is used, how well has it been tested? > > Yes but log4j, logback are hugely tested > > Furthermore are we sure performances of theseew libraries are not better > ? > > ( you will kill this argument ;) ) > > Are we sure they are not worse? Especially if they support a lot of > special features. > > Yes > But regardless, the effect on a test run is what counts. > > > > >> > Not much documentation on web, I had to search last time when > >> implementing > >> > 41788 and 53261. API is limited compared to Commons-logging, log4j , > >> slf4j > >> > >> In what way is it limited? > >> AFAIK, it's similar to commons-logging. > >> > >> No there are limitations on appenders additions, you cannot add, you > must > > set them all, at least one issue i faced. > > Sorry, I don't follow. > > Look at Log Viewer code changes: https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41788 > > > > > >> > I remember when starting using jmeter (I knew at that time log4j, > >> > commons-logging) I had to modify log level somewhere, I search a while > >> > because it was a new mechanism to learn (had jmeter relied on existing > >> conf > >> > of log4j or other I would have found this very rapidly, ActiveMQ for > >> > example uses commons-logging, slf4j and possibly logback). > >> > > >> >> Would we lose any functionality by changing? > >> >> > >> > I don't think so. > >> > But maybe you should detail all the features and we could check. > >> > >> That's quite difficult to do. > >> > >> >> > >> >> It took a lot of work to get everything set up properly; and will be > a > >> >> very major undertaking to change everything. > >> >> It's not just changes to class import statements and creating a > >> >> different logger. > >> >> There's documentation, and the way we use properties to control > >> >> logging different classes and packages. > >> >> If that changes, it could break some user installations. > >> >> > >> > > >> > I agree it changes but log4j, commons-logging, slf4j are such standard > >> that > >> > it's very easy to find info, for example look at stackoverflow > >> statistics: > >> > > >> > - http://stackoverflow.com/questions/tagged/slf4j : 390 questions > >> > - http://stackoverflow.com/questions/tagged/log4j : 2170 questions > >> > - http://stackoverflow.com/questions/tagged/logback : 320 > questions > >> > - http://stackoverflow.com/questions/tagged/apache-commons-logging: > >> 61 > >> > questions > >> > - logkit, avalon, excalibur : 0 questions > >> > > >> > >> So? AFAICT, most of that relates to using and implementing logging, > >> rather than configuring logging levels, which is the main issue for > >> end users. > >> > >> They also relate to configuring , what i am trying to sat is that there > is > > much more docs on these new libs as on excalibur one. > > The only configuration that the end-user needs to do is to set the log > level for the package(s). > It would be the same for log4j, logback > > That aspect of configuration is quite sophisticated in Avalon. > As well as quite easy to use (and trivial for developers, as the name > is automatically created from the class name). > Same for log4j, logback > > How would that work in other logging implementations? > It's important that logging can be easily selectively enabled. > > Same for log4j, logback > > Regarding user, see my argument on contributors , plugin writers, > > developpers > > >> > >> > Users will also need to get learn a different way of controlling > logging. > >> >> > >> >> > >> > We could rely on underlying product documentation which is quite well > >> known > >> > (log4j , logback ) instead of creating our own mechanism . > >> > We could then remove all Logging Configuration paragraph from > >> > jmeter.properties. > >> > > >> >> > >> >> > > >> >> > Perhaps, some issue with the logback dual licences (EPL and LGPL). > I'm > >> >> not > >> >> > sure if we can used the logback with only the choice of EPL > licence... > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > The commons-logging and the Log4j are under AL2.0, seems better to > >> use an > >> >> > ASF product in an ASF product? ;-) > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > >> >> >> I think we should really remove dependency on Apache Excalibur. > >> >> > >> >> We still use parts of Excalibur for JDBC pooling. > >> >> > >> >> I don't see the point of pooling if you are testing JDBC; it then > >> >> becomes as much a test of the pool rather than JDBC. > >> >> > >> > Don't understand this > >> > > >> >> > >> >> If we do want to support pooling, it should be selectable. > >> >> However I don't know if there is a standard Pooling API, so that > might > >> >> not be possible. > >> >> > >> >> Why not use commons-dbcp or tomcat-pool for this ? > >> > >> See separate thread. > >> > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > >> >> >> Regards > >> >> >> > >> >> >> Philippe > >> >> >> // Copying dialog from another thread: > >> >> >> > >> >> >> Philippe says > >> >> >> >> As we are now in these big changes (static final, interface > >> cleanup > >> >> ... > >> >> >> ) > >> >> >> >> Sebb, milamber is it ok for you if I start migration to > >> >> commons-logging > >> >> >> ? > >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> Milamber says: > >> >> >> > Why commons-loggings (not updated since 2008)? > >> >> >> > >> >> >> Sebb says: > >> >> >> AIUI it's not been updated since it works; there has been no need > to > >> >> update > >> >> >> it. > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > Log4J ? > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > or directly java.util.logging.*? > >> >> >> > >> >> >> That's broken, according to what I read. > >> >> >> > >> >> >> On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 1:39 PM, Philippe Mouawad < > >> >> >> philippe.moua...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > Hello Sebb, > >> >> >> > My responses below. > >> >> >> > Regards > >> >> >> > Philippe > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 1:02 PM, sebb <seb...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> >> On 23 January 2012 06:49, Philippe Mouawad < > >> >> philippe.moua...@gmail.com> > >> >> >> >> wrote: > >> >> >> >> > Regarding logging, > >> >> >> >> > It CAN Go fast if we share work and each of us takes one SRC > >> >> folder. > >> >> >> >> > It's à matter f search replace for 90%. > >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> It's still the same amount of work, no matter how many people > do > >> it. > >> >> >> >> [Possibly more, if you allow for co-ordination overheads] > >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> Generally it's the last 10% that takes all the effort. > >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> > => I agree , I volunteer to do it if you agree after release. > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> Definitely not something to be started just before a release. > >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> => It was not my intention, it is just after the release. > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> >> Also, we would still need to keep the jars unless we rewrote > >> >> >> >> OldSaveService - or made it optional. > >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> > > >> >> >> >> > Regarding pool i am not sure to there is an datasourceelemnt > >> That > >> >> >> has à > >> >> >> >> > Maxpool property and looking at code it seemed the excalibur > >> >> >> datasource > >> >> >> >> > was using this property. > >> >> >> >> > Commons jdbc BasicDatasource was looking very close to it. > >> >> >> >> > > >> >> >> >> > Regards > >> >> >> >> > Philippe > >> >> >> >> > On Monday, January 23, 2012, Anthony Johnson < > ans...@gmail.com> > >> >> >> wrote: > >> >> >> >> >> On Sun, Jan 22, 2012 at 9:28 PM, sebb <seb...@gmail.com> > >> wrote: > >> >> >> >> >>> On 23 January 2012 01:46, Anthony Johnson < > ans...@gmail.com> > >> >> wrote: > >> >> >> >> >>>> On Sun, Jan 22, 2012 at 8:29 PM, sebb <seb...@gmail.com> > >> wrote: > >> >> >> >> >>>>> > >> >> >> >> >>>>> On 22 January 2012 13:04, Philippe Mouawad < > >> >> >> >> philippe.moua...@gmail.com> > >> > > > > > > -- > > Cordialement. > > Philippe Mouawad. > -- Cordialement. Philippe Mouawad.
