I think we are making progress here, and actually there isn't too much
work to do. Let me paraphrase to make sure I am understanding you
correctly.
* The source of messages should be abstracted behind an interface. A
default implementation that uses resource bundles could be provided
for easy ootb experience.
* The provision of the Locale should be an orthogonal concept to the
logging of messages and the creation of the Logger. This should be
handled via the MDC.
IMO there are still a few questions to answer:
* Takeshi original design allowed you to use Enums as keys for
messages. I'm personally not sure about this, I'm not really sure what
benefits it offers over Strings as keys
* How does a framework provide translated messages [1] to i8ln layer?
Can we also use the MDC here to push them in, and have the appender
read them?
* Should there be a convention for the key used? For example a key
should use a FQN.
* How does the integrate with the various slf4j back ends? Do we
somehow want to map it to the JDK logging i8ln support? What about
log4j?
[1] I'm assuming that a framework developer will want to provide
translations for it's logging messages
Regarding your suggestion to enhance logback - I want to be able to
provide l10n for my log messages regardless of which logging back end
is in use (for example, the framework I am currently working on
currently targets JBoss AS, GlassFish, and Tomcat as possible
runtimes, which use a combination of JDK logging and log4j).
On 19 Aug 2009, at 17:16, Ralph Goers wrote:
On Aug 19, 2009, at 8:31 AM, Pete Muir wrote:
Hi Ralph,
Whether or not resource bundles suck in our opinion, they are the
standard approach to this so I believe we can't just dismiss them.
Let me rephrase. It isn't just that they suck. In my environment
resource bundles don't work for I18N. I'm not in favor of having
features implemented that I can't use. But my opinion doesn't really
carry any more weight than yours.
I'm also unsure how, in your approach, a framework would provide
i8ln'ized log messages which would be used?
As I've said, I'm not at all in favor of SLF4J "doing" I18N. It is
better to do it under a framework such as Spring's MessageSource
interface where you can either use the default implementation, which
uses ResourceBundles, or easily provide your own. As I said, I'm
also planning on creating a framework to manage internationalized
messages using Commons Configuration and XML files.
In that scenario the application either calls getMessage() and then
passes the resulting String to the log call or the application
passes the message key as the message on the log call, which is the
approach I would suggest. In the second scenario it is up to the
Appender to resolve the key by calling getMessage(). Ideally, the
Appender should be able to tell whether it is getting a key or the
actual message text. This can be done simply by convention - i.e. a
log message like "key=Message1" or by passing a parameter. There is
no real need to enhance SLF4J to be able to do this.
The piece that SLF4J is missing is the ability to detect the target
Locale of the message. But even this can be handled without change
to SLF4J. Just adding the Locale to the MDC would allow the Appender
to do the right thing. Of course, you'd have to use a logging
implementation that supports the MDC.
In short, instead of asking for a change to SLF4J it would make more
sense to me for you to ask for an enhancement to Logback so that any
Appender can have the opportunity to internationalize the message.
Currently you'd have to do that in a Layout, but I don't believe all
Appenders support them.
Ralph
_______________________________________________
dev mailing list
dev@slf4j.org
http://www.slf4j.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
_______________________________________________
dev mailing list
dev@slf4j.org
http://www.slf4j.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
