No objection to creating logger names from Class.getCanonicalName() instead of Class.getName(). I assume that this means we don't need a custom toLoggerName(Class) method.
Question for our Scala experts: does Class.getCanonicalName() preserve the trailing $ in Scala classes? At some point there was talk of API changes. Is that still needed? Finally, I guess in order to keep supporting the current behaviour as well, we still need to build configuration support for this <Configuration hierarchySeparators="./$" ... Is my understanding correct? On Sun, Aug 20, 2017 at 3:47 AM, Ralph Goers <[email protected]> wrote: > I agree. > > Ralph > > > On Aug 19, 2017, at 11:43 AM, Matt Sicker <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Canonical name sounds like it makes sense. I wonder what that evaluates > to > > in other JVM languages like Scala, Kotlin, Clojure, etc., but it seems to > > make sense. > > > > On 19 August 2017 at 13:23, Dominik Psenner <[email protected]> wrote: > > > >> To me it is a simple and good solution to the problem. The first > outlined > >> solution has the pro that it would give a user more sophisticated ways > to > >> build logger hierarchies from class names, but it is also something that > >> only a very small subset of users would use. We can keep that as a wish > for > >> later. > >> > >> 2017-08-19 20:13 GMT+02:00 Gary Gregory <[email protected]>: > >> > >>> Any opposition to using the canonical name? > >>> > >>> Gary > >>> > >>> On Aug 14, 2017 15:28, "Gary Gregory" <[email protected]> wrote: > >>> > >>>> In LogManager, if we call getCanonicalName() instead of getName(), we > >>> only > >>>> get "."s, no "$"s... > >>>> > >>>> How about that? > >>>> > >>>> Gary > >>>> > >>>> On Mon, Aug 14, 2017 at 3:24 PM, Gary Gregory <[email protected] > > > >>>> wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> Another way to look at this is that instead of calling > class.getName() > >>> we > >>>>> would call our own toLoggerName(Class) which would NOT use $ but only > >>> use > >>>>> "."s. > >>>>> > >>>>> Gary > >>>>> > >>>>> On Mon, Aug 14, 2017 at 3:07 PM, Matt Sicker <[email protected]> > >> wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>>> The logger name hierarchy interpretation is handled at the string > >>> level, > >>>>>> not the class level. I don't think the class needs to be passed > along > >>> as > >>>>>> there isn't much useful info we can get from the Class instance that > >> we > >>>>>> can't already figure out from its FQCN. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> On 14 August 2017 at 15:56, Ralph Goers <[email protected] > > > >>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> On Aug 14, 2017, at 1:38 PM, Gary Gregory < > >> [email protected]> > >>>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> On Mon, Aug 14, 2017 at 2:08 PM, Ralph Goers < > >>>>>> [email protected] > >>>>>>> <mailto:[email protected]>> > >>>>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> On Aug 14, 2017, at 11:49 AM, Gary Gregory < > >>> [email protected] > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Aug 14, 2017 at 12:35 PM, Gary Gregory < > >>>>>> [email protected] > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> Probably for Ralph: > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> Right now, it's the LogManager in log4j-api that converts > >> Class > >>>>>> names > >>>>>>>>> into > >>>>>>>>>>> Logger names. > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> There is no getLogger(Class) API in the Core LoggerContext. > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> Should we push down this conversion into Core's LoggerContext? > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> It seems the sane thing to do to: > >>>>>>>>>>> - Avoid making something pluggable in log4j-api > >>>>>>>>>>> - Avoid making Core parse logger names looking for separators. > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> But that would mean adding two methods to: > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> org.apache.logging.log4j.spi.LoggerContext: > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> org.apache.logging.log4j.spi.LoggerContext.getLogger(Class<?>) > >>>>>>>>>> org.apache.logging.log4j.spi.LoggerContext.getLogger(Class<?>, > >>>>>>>>>> MessageFactory) > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> Thoughts? > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Why does it mean that? > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> If we want the core to implement converting Class names to Logger > >>>>>> names, > >>>>>>>> the Class must be passed down to the Core. Right now the > >> LogManager > >>>>>> does > >>>>>>>> that by calling org.apache.logging.log4j.spi.LoggerContext > >>> methods. > >>>>>>> These > >>>>>>>> methods take only String for the logger name. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> And that is a problem because….? I am trying to understand why > >>>>>>> LoggerContext will be required to accept a class name. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Ralph > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> -- > >>>>>> Matt Sicker <[email protected]> > >>>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>> > >>> > >> > >> > >> > >> -- > >> Dominik Psenner > >> > > > > > > > > -- > > Matt Sicker <[email protected]> > > >
