An actual JSR would be great, and with the current development pace of Java, I think it could actually be accepted.
On Thu, 19 Jul 2018 at 14:35, Rob Tompkins <chtom...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Jul 19, 2018, at 2:35 PM, Ralph Goers <ralph.go...@dslextreme.com> > wrote: > > > > It has been brought up before. You can read about the JSR process at > http://jcp.org <http://jcp.org/>. > > Seems like we’d want to make this a collaborative effort, particularly > because they look for a collection of experts. I’ll see if I can come up > with a draft that we could go over here. > > -Rob > > > > > Ralph > > > >> On Jul 19, 2018, at 11:19 AM, Rob Tompkins <chtom...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> > >> That doesn’t seem like a bad idea at all. Have you done that before or > are you at least familiar with the process so that I could begin working on > that? > >> > >> -Rob > >> > >>> On Jul 19, 2018, at 2:04 PM, Ralph Goers <ralph.go...@dslextreme.com> > wrote: > >>> > >>> We should really propose a new Logging JSR. I would make sure it > includes the ability for the compiler to provide the class name, method > name and line number as “special” variables. > >>> > >>> Ralph > >>> > >>>> On Jul 19, 2018, at 10:53 AM, Gary Gregory <garydgreg...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >>>> > >>>> Maybe the smallest feature we could/should start with it a > >>>> class-level @ClassLogger() annotation which create a static final > Logger > >>>> initialized with the class name. Too bad Java does not have what > Smalltalk > >>>> calls class instance variables. > >>>> > >>>> I am using "ClassLogger" like JUnit has ClassRule so it leave room for > >>>> a @Logger like JUnit has @Rule. > >>>> > >>>> Gary > >>>> > >>>> On Thu, Jul 19, 2018 at 11:43 AM Rob Tompkins <chtom...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>>> On Jul 19, 2018, at 1:41 PM, Ralph Goers < > ralph.go...@dslextreme.com> > >>>>> wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>> To be clear, Log4j-core should have no required dependencies other > than > >>>>> Log4j-API. And we would like to keep optional dependencies to a > minimum. > >>>>> > >>>>> Right that makes sense to me. Hence it being an after thought, and I > like > >>>>> Gary’s suggestion of a compile time dependency for the sake of > weaving. > >>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Ralph > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> On Jul 19, 2018, at 10:36 AM, Gary Gregory <garydgreg...@gmail.com > > > >>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> eOn Thu, Jul 19, 2018 at 10:19 AM Rob Tompkins <chtom...@gmail.com > >>>>> <mailto:chtom...@gmail.com>> wrote: > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> On Jul 19, 2018, at 11:48 AM, Gary Gregory < > garydgreg...@gmail.com> > >>>>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> FTR: https://projectlombok.org/features/log > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> On Thu, Jul 19, 2018 at 8:48 AM Gary Gregory < > garydgreg...@gmail.com> > >>>>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> On Thu, Jul 19, 2018 at 8:26 AM Rob Tompkins < > chtom...@gmail.com> > >>>>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> On Jul 19, 2018, at 10:17 AM, Gary Gregory < > garydgreg...@gmail.com > >>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, Jul 19, 2018 at 8:07 AM Rob Tompkins < > chtom...@gmail.com> > >>>>>>>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jul 19, 2018, at 9:29 AM, Gary Gregory < > >>>>> garydgreg...@gmail.com> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Annotation-based logging comes up once in a while here but > we > >>>>> have > >>>>>>>> not > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> implemented it. Project Lombok does that IIRC. > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Any reason for having not yet implemented it, or just the > standard > >>>>>>>>>>> “time”? > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> It's just more "stuff" and yes, time. And also, no one's > wanted to > >>>>> put > >>>>>>>>>>> the > >>>>>>>>>>>> time in. > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> But then there are design issues and adding more "stuff" to > the API > >>>>>>>> jar. > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> - Would you allow @Log(level=Level.TRACE) (should be the > default?) > >>>>> and > >>>>>>>>>>>> @Log(level=Level.DEBUG) > >>>>>>>>>>>> - What happens if you say both? > >>>>>>>>>>>> - Should you be able to break it up and only say @LogEntry() > or > >>>>>>>>>>> @LogExit(). > >>>>>>>>>>>> - What about @Log(file="${user.home}\foo.log") > >>>>>>>>>>>> - and on and on ;-) > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> Definitely fair points, I think I would try to go as simple as > >>>>> possible > >>>>>>>>>>> in a first pass…right? > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> @Log > >>>>>>>>>>> @Log(level=X) > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> Well, yes. But we need to think about the scope of the > annotation. > >>>>> The > >>>>>>>>>> name @Log is as broad as you can think of making the name. So > if we > >>>>>>>> want to > >>>>>>>>>> put more in there later, then we need to make sure that's the > best > >>>>> name. > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> Do you think > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> @Log() > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> could be the default for (for example) > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> @Log(level=Level.TRACE, entry=true, entryParameters=ALL, > exit=true, > >>>>>>>>>> exitValue=true) > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> Where entryParameters (if on a method) would let me list which > params > >>>>>>>> for > >>>>>>>>>> that methods to log) > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> How do I avoid logging a password argument for example? Sounds > like > >>>>> we > >>>>>>>> can > >>>>>>>>>> do away with entryParameters if we have a @LogHide to annotate a > >>>>>>>>>> parameter. > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> I could see that as step one but we need to think about all > that we > >>>>>>>> would > >>>>>>>>>> want to do to make sure @Log is the right name. What's a name > that > >>>>> says > >>>>>>>> log > >>>>>>>>>> all entries and exits? @LogEntryExit? > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> Overall I would think that this kind of annotated class would > change > >>>>>>>> that > >>>>>>>>>> class' byte codes after compilation so that there are no runtime > >>>>>>>>>> requirements even for annotations. I certainly would not want to > >>>>> leave > >>>>>>>>>> behind clues like @LogHide to would be attackers.... > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> Thoughts? > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> I think that @Log is the wrong name because it’s quite vague. > Maybe > >>>>>>>> @LogMethodCalls, or as you suggest @LogEntryExit. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> I like the signature you suggested @Gary. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> @Matt - As for mechanics, I would think we would want to do > compile > >>>>> time > >>>>>>>> byte code weaving. (Is there any appetite for using aspectJ? Feels > >>>>> like a > >>>>>>>> large ask to add a dependency to log4j2 though.) > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> I've not lloked at AspectJ for a long time, not sure it requires a > >>>>> runtime; > >>>>>>> I think we want a compile time only dep, Apache Commson Weaver or > Apache > >>>>>>> Commons BCEL come to mind. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Gary > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> Gary > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> -Rob > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> Gary > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Gary > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, Jul 19, 2018, 07:15 Rob Tompkins < > chtom...@gmail.com > >>>>> <mailto:chtom...@gmail.com>> > >>>>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hey folks, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I’m curious if anyone has thought about adding a class > level > >>>>> @Log > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> annotation such that upon debug or trace configuration, > method > >>>>>>>> entry > >>>>>>>>>>> and > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> exit gets automatically logged? > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -Rob > >>>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>> > >>> > >> > >> > > > > -- Matt Sicker <boa...@gmail.com>
