On Aug 1, 2007, at 3:50 PM, David Blevins wrote:
On Jul 31, 2007, at 7:23 PM, Karan Malhi wrote:
I'm sorry if I scared you away from working on this.
Not at all. I learnt a lot from this discussion and the link which
you
sent on the "LockFree HashMap" was invaluable. It was just that I
wasn't sure on what needs to be done because of different types of
logging frameworks and that I do not know enough to tell which
logging
framework is better. I was just waiting for a concrete decision on
this topic and wanted to get this issue resolved so that I could
start work on some documentation stuff.
Well, we'll need to support log4j for Geronimo anyway, so we could
keep going with that for now. As long as we keep it hidden under
the Logger class we can always abstract it out later and support
both java.util.logging and log4j. But one change at a time, no
need to make this too big to solve now. The it'll be great to get
the hierarchical logging stuff in regardless of who is doing the
actual logging.
On the note about making the logging code always do the i18n stuff
and assume you're passing in a message key and array of details,
that could work. There are a few places in the code where we need
to log something and throw an exception and have been doing stuff
like this:
String msg = messages.format("config.noContainerFound",
d.getContainerId(), d.getEjbName());
logger.fatal(msg);
throw new OpenEJBException(msg);
But I suppose if we had each logger return the formatted message it
could still be fine, such as:
String msg = logger.fatal("config.noContainerFound",
d.getContainerId(), d.getEjbName());
throw new OpenEJBException(msg);
Maybe even throw a method on the Logger to get the Messages
instance out so people could still use it to construct error
messages that aren't logged.
Just in case you ever want to move to monitors instead of direct
logging you might want to think about if and how this approach would
work with monitors. I haven't thought about it yet myself, it might
work great.
thanks
david jencks
-David
