We already agreed and decided to keep the if condition. I'm not sure
why this subject is being reopened.
On Mon, Dec 10, 2018 at 9:49 PM Jacques Le Roux
<jacques.le.r...@les7arts.com> wrote:
>
> The question is quite simple. It's about always using or not the /if
> (Debug.levelOn()) {/ expression for the info and debug level as suggests
> Michael.
>
> Or only using /if/ /(Debug.verboseOn()) { /expression as I recommend for the
> reasons explained.
>
> I think we all agree the /if/ /(Debug.verboseOn()) { /should always be used
> and enforced when missing.
>
> I put all the details/arguments to easily refer to them if needed.
>
> Also Mathieu suggested to Michael to have a look at "Beautiful Logger"
> because he is concerned by the logging performance. We could also have a look
> at it, to see if it could be integrated OOTB.
>
> HTH
>
> Jacques
>
> Le 10/12/2018 à 18:02, Taher Alkhateeb a écrit :
> > I didn't understand the exact decision required? To do what vs what?
> > On Mon, Dec 10, 2018 at 7:43 PM Jacques Le Roux
> > <jacques.le.r...@les7arts.com> wrote:
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> After OFBIZ-10052, OFBIZ-10448, and OFBIZ-10697 I think it's time to have
> >> another discussion following https://markmail.org/message/mplvusuqn7oshl4v
> >> which was one year ago.
> >>
> >> In OFBIZ-10697 I wrote:
> >>
> >> <<OK let me explain my point.
> >>
> >> By default OOTB debug.properties sets all debug levels to be used but
> >> verbose. So there is no point checking other levels than verbose to see if
> >> they are used, they are anyway. So OOTB only checking verbose is
> >> needed. That's what developers need.
> >>
> >> Now you invoked production where a different debug.properties setting
> >> would be used. Sincerely I'd never, never, remove the other levels than
> >> verbose from a production setting (as it's OOTB). I'd even be quite
> >> reluctant to remove any of those levels from a production site running for
> >> years! *You never know what can happen*, and those debug levels are
> >> your only lifebelt in case of issues, small and big ones.
> >>
> >> That's my point, and that's why I see checking if a level is used as
> >> premature optimisation but for verbose. We need them anyway and IMO setting
> >> false for any but verbose in debug.properties in production would be
> >> conceited if not "suicidal" . But maybe you have use cases I ignore?
> >>
> >> Anway, I'll start a discussion in dev ML about this point. Like I
> >> said above and in OFBIZ-10448
> >> <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-10448>:
> >>
> >> I'd be all for removing the 312 useless cases but not the "if
> >> (Debug.verboseOn())">>
> >>
> >> To what Michael answered
> >>
> >> <<We have several projects with huge traffic and you certainly won't
> >> run them on debug level info, verbose or debug.
> >> In my view, at least these 3 debug levels should be checked. At
> >> least, existing checks should not be removed.>>
> >>
> >> I think Michael's point is perfectly valid. So I answered:
> >>
> >> <<I had not the same experience, you are lucky to not cross any issue
> >> in production needing an info or debug level.
> >> OK then we need to see things otherwise and rather enforce the checks
> >> to these 2 levels at least in all the source (Java and Groovy). That's what
> >> I'll ask in the convo to come in dev ML.>>
> >>
> >> So what are your opinion about that? Should we enforce as suggest Michael
> >> or should we remove for the reasons I wrote.
> >>
> >> I'd prefer to be consistent. So either we enforce the checks to the info,
> >> verbose and debug levels. Either we only keep the verbose checks.
> >>
> >> Finally Mathieu has added a grain of salt:
> >>
> >> <<Hello Michael Brohl
> >> <https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ViewProfile.jspa?name=mbrohl>,
> >>
> >> If you care about the impact of loggers on performance you should
> >> take a look at the Beautiful Logger
> >> <https://github.com/forax/beautiful_logger>
> >> library by Remi Forax which implements a truly transparent logger. In
> >> a recent Devoxx talk <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z5UkoLaW6ME> (in
> >> french) he showed that even doing if (Debug.logXXX()) has a 3x
> >> slowdown compared to a no-op.>>
> >>
> >> So maybe we should have a closer look at Beautiful Logger before taking
> >> any decision? Note that it uses JitPack, hence seems to need "Java 11 to
> >> build".
> >>
> >> Thanks
> >>
> >> Jacques
> >>
