Thanks for all the feedback. I have opened SLING-4739 and committed the code to svn. The documentation is also moved to Sling site [2]
> For me a Sling- prefix > is enough to make it clear that it's a private, Sling-specific, > header, but I don't have a strong opinion about it. @Robert - Code now uses Sling-Tracers and Sling-Tracer-Config has header name > Is there a fundamental reason the LogTracer class must put ServletFilters > as inner classes ? It has 8 inner classes which generally makes > understanding the code harder and leads to the temptation to reference > internal implementation details across class boundaries. I understand other > languages have that flexibility by mistake or intention, but the pattern > when used in Java tends to lead to problems downstream. @Ian - I prefer use of inner class if the class is not to be exposed or not to be known to outer world. However I agree in this case it went bit overboard, so committed code is refactored to simplify the logic. Hopefully this is simpler! Chetan Mehrotra [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SLING-4739 [2] http://sling.apache.org/documentation/bundles/log-tracers.html On Thu, May 21, 2015 at 2:11 PM, Robert Munteanu <[email protected]> wrote: > On Thu, May 21, 2015 at 11:38 AM, Chetan Mehrotra > <[email protected]> wrote: >> On Thu, May 21, 2015 at 2:00 PM, Robert Munteanu <[email protected]> wrote: >>> AEM -> Sling is self-explanatory, and the X- prefix is deprecated with >>> RFC6648 [1] >> >> Well not sure. That recommendation is meant for headers which are >> meant to be used in a wider context. Header which are very much >> specific to application are better prefixed to indicate that they are >> custom ones IMHO [2]. So I would prefer naming them X-Sling-Tracers. > > Right, it doesn't apply to 'private' headers. For me a Sling- prefix > is enough to make it clear that it's a private, Sling-specific, > header, but I don't have a strong opinion about it. > > Robert
