I agree. As a framework it is important to take badly behaved implementations into account such as our Whitespace AE which prints trace style messages on INFO log level.
Jörn On Wed, Feb 15, 2017 at 2:11 PM, Thilo Goetz <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On 14/02/2017 19:11, Marshall Schor wrote: > >> Thank you. >> >> That message is (of course) being generated by the Whitespace Tokenizer >> Annotator, not by UIMA itself. >> >> That said, there seem to be a few ways to stop that message: >> >> a) change the implementation of that Annotator to not output that >> message >> > > I can do that for this specific annotator, but I also use annotators that > do the same thing, where I don't have access to the source code. So that > doesn't really help. > > >> b) explicitly configure the log level to not log INFO messages (could >> be made >> specific to the Whitespace Tokenizer Annotator, or general) I take it >> this kind >> of configuration is hard to do when UIMA is, in turn, embedded into some >> other >> framework. >> >> c) implicitly configure the log level to not log INFO messages by >> default. I >> think in fact this is the default? Perhaps the embedding application is >> setting >> this to INFO? >> >> Is modifying the Annotator so it doesn't log on every document a viable >> option >> for you? Or is that just one example, and what you want is some way to >> configure the logger to turn off logging, but without using the >> configuration >> that's available with loggers at deploy time? >> > > The latter. IMO, annotators shouldn't log anything, anyway. And the > framework should only log if it is provided with a logger by the embedding > application. I really think that I should not have to jump through hoops if > I don't want any log output. Am I the only one who thinks that? It's fine > if all you do is UIMA processing. However, when UIMA is only a small part > of a bigger whole, I should be able to integrate it into whatever I'm > running in. The logging needs to be controlled by the main application, > whether that's Hadoop, Spark, or something I write myself. UIMA should not > take it upon itself to log anything when nobody is asking it to. > > --Thilo > > >> -Marshall >> >> On 2/14/2017 11:45 AM, Thilo Goetz wrote: >> >>> Feb 14, 2017 5:44:39 PM WhitespaceTokenizer process >>> INFO: "Whitespace tokenizer starts processing" >>> Feb 14, 2017 5:44:39 PM WhitespaceTokenizer process >>> INFO: "Whitespace tokenizer finished processing" >>> Feb 14, 2017 5:44:39 PM WhitespaceTokenizer process >>> INFO: "Whitespace tokenizer starts processing" >>> Feb 14, 2017 5:44:39 PM WhitespaceTokenizer process >>> INFO: "Whitespace tokenizer finished processing" >>> Feb 14, 2017 5:44:39 PM WhitespaceTokenizer process >>> INFO: "Whitespace tokenizer starts processing" >>> Feb 14, 2017 5:44:39 PM WhitespaceTokenizer process >>> INFO: "Whitespace tokenizer finished processing" >>> >>> >>> On 14/02/2017 17:30, Marshall Schor wrote: >>> >>>> can you post some log output that occurs per document that is >>>> configured (by >>>> default) to be "on"? >>>> >>>> -Marshall >>>> >>>> >>>> On 2/14/2017 11:12 AM, Thilo Goetz wrote: >>>> >>>>> On 14/02/2017 15:29, Joern Kottmann wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> A common case we will have is a user who is ignorant about the >>>>>> logging and >>>>>> doesn't care about it, for him - out of the box - the log messages >>>>>> should >>>>>> be printed to the console. >>>>>> >>>>> I disagree. UIMA is a library that is usually embedded in another >>>>> application. >>>>> By default, it should not do any logging at all. Please think about >>>>> people who >>>>> use UIMA in contexts where we don't have control over the startup of >>>>> the VM, >>>>> such as Hadoop or Spark. The fact that I can't turn off logging without >>>>> providing some sort of config file for the VM at startup time is a >>>>> major pain >>>>> in the neck, at least for me. It is not just annoying, it is a real >>>>> issue when >>>>> you process thousands of documents per second and UIMA insists on >>>>> logging >>>>> several lines for each of them. Please make it stop. >>>>> >>>>> --Thilo >>>>> >>>>> Is that possible with sl4j? >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Jörn >>>>>> >>>>>> On Tue, Feb 14, 2017 at 12:14 PM, Richard Eckart de Castilho < >>>>>> [email protected] >>>>>> >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> On 06.02.2017, at 21:39, Marshall Schor <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> now considering not using logback except via eclipse plugin >>>>>>>> dependency, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> to avoid >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> license reciprocity issue. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> For normal binary packaging, would use slf4j + some backend, perhaps >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> log4j 2. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> These would be "excluded" for the OSGi packaging. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> UIMA as a library should not have dependencies on a particular >>>>>>> logging >>>>>>> backend. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I guess when you talk about "normal binary packaging" you mean the >>>>>>> binary >>>>>>> release >>>>>>> package that we do, right? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> So these instead of "excluding" a logging backend for OSGi, I think >>>>>>> it >>>>>>> would rather >>>>>>> be "including" a logging backend only for OSGi and the binary >>>>>>> packaging >>>>>>> but not >>>>>>> having it in any other way as a dependency in any POM (except maybe >>>>>>> as a >>>>>>> test dependency). >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -- Richard >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>> >
