This is exactly why I believe we should only support LogBuilder as it already has withLocation(). I see no point in adding the parameter to all the non-fluent variations.
To work, the location must be passed as a parameter on the logging API call. Thus it won’t work for Log4j 1 or SLF4J. Ralph > On Jul 10, 2022, at 12:47 PM, Volkan Yazıcı <vol...@yazi.ci> wrote: > > Indeed supporting both static and dynamic weaving seems like the ideal > approach. (SPI-Fly is an interesting one. My OSGi illiteracy blocked me > from wrapping my mind around all of its details. Nevertheless, I think I > get the gist of it.) For both functionalities, we need to receive a package > list to scan for, right? > > Translating logger calls to the ones that receive the source location > information as arguments is also a valid direction. Though note that this > requires doubling the size of the API surface, AFAIC. That is, for every > `info(String)`, we need to introduce `info(String, SourceLocation)`, etc. > Hence, I am inclined to go this route unless I am missing something. > > Piotr, what is your take on my claim that this optimization won't work for > bridges (SLF4J, log4j-1.2-api, etc.)? > > On Sat, Jul 9, 2022 at 5:02 PM Piotr P. Karwasz <piotr.karw...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> Hi Volkan, >> >> On Sat, 9 Jul 2022 at 12:05, Volkan Yazıcı <vol...@yazi.ci> wrote: >>> I think we can extend this experiment to implement zero-cost source >>> location capture for Log4j. Though I will appreciate your help on some >>> loose ends. Assuming we have a bullet-proof mechanism to inline source >>> location capture given a class, what is the right way to ship this? As a >>> Maven plugin that kicks in at compile time? Wouldn't that make this >> feature >>> impossible to use without recompiling user sources? As a runtime utility? >>> If so, what about the cost of classpath scanning & weaving? If the >> bytecode >>> weaving only intercepts at Log4j API calls, this won't work for Log4j 1 >>> bridge, SLF4J, or any other indirect access to the Log4j API. What do you >>> think? I have used a thread-local to pass the source location to the >>> caller, is there a better alternative? (Putting aside the dynamic-scoped >>> variables to be shipped with Loom.) >> >> Great idea. I think that we can provide both a static and dynamic >> weaver from the same code (cf. SPI-Fly: >> https://github.com/apache/aries/tree/trunk/spi-fly). Developers would >> be advised to statically weave their artifacts, while system >> administrators could do it during runtime. >> >> The usage of a `ThreadLocal` seems Ok to me. Alternatively we could >> add some parameters to the `Logger.log` calls, but this would mean 4 >> additional parameters on each simple call and we'll end up using the >> `Logger.log` method with an Object array. >> >> Piotr >>
