Yeah, I was actually thinking about that same angle last night. Perhaps I could provide some control var on DB to enable detailed or basic logging? I think that it would be very useful in some cases, for example, to know that underlying code is setting max rows or max fetch size, but I agree that most people will probably just want basic statements logged. Also, with a prepared statement someone *could* execute multiple queries in one go, so I can't get rid of the list of stuff. Another approach would be to give the logFuncs List to the Logging classes and then they could decide whether to log (and time) each execution individually or all at once (if someone sets batch mode, for example). What do you think?
Derek On Sun, Aug 16, 2009 at 8:09 AM, marius d. <marius.dan...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Derek, > > I was looking to your code, GOOD stuff ! One thing though.The > LoggedStatement.toString would return a List of log entries and not a > query but the user's Log function expects a query and the time spent > on that query so there is a little miss match between when user's > function expects and what we're feeding to it. Also you are creating > strings like: > > "Exec query \"%s\" : rs = %s".format(sql, rs)" > > ...which may be perfect. But I wonder if user's won't expect just the > query/update and nothing else and they will do their own logging and > formatting. > > > Br's, > Marius > > On Aug 16, 3:07 am, Derek Chen-Becker <dchenbec...@gmail.com> wrote: > > I only fixed the groupId because maven was giving me a warning that it > had > > changed. I can bump the versions to 0.9.5 this week and if that builds > fine > > I'll check it in. > > > > On Sat, Aug 15, 2009 at 3:22 PM, Bill Venners <b...@artima.com> wrote: > > > Hi Derek, > > > > > I noticed you checked in a change to Lift that updated the Maven > ScalaTest > > > ref. However the ref is to version 0.9.4, whereas the current version > is > > > 0.9.5. > > > > > Thanks. > > > > > Bill---- > > > Bill Venners > > > Artima, Inc. > > >http://www.artima.com > > > > > On Aug 15, 2009, at 7:02 AM, Derek Chen-Becker <dchenbec...@gmail.com> > > > wrote: > > > > > OK, a preliminary version of log wrappers is checked in on > > > wip-dcb-sql-log-wrappers. I'll merge it on Tuesday if no one sees any > > > problems with it. > > > > > Derek > > > > > On Tue, Aug 11, 2009 at 11:08 AM, Derek Chen-Becker << > dchenbec...@gmail.com> > > > dchenbec...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > >> Will do. > > > > >> On Tue, Aug 11, 2009 at 2:33 AM, marius d. < <marius.dan...@gmail.com > > > > >> marius.dan...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > >>> Please do so. If you need any help for some reason (time availability > > >>> etc.) please let me know. As a note probably the wrappers should be > > >>> only only when there is at least one log function registered. > > > > >>> Br's, > > >>> Marius > > > > >>> On Aug 6, 11:48 pm, Derek Chen-Becker <dchenbec...@gmail.com> wrote: > > >>> > If there's a consensus that we want our own JDBC wrappers I'll go > ahead > > >>> and > > >>> > write them. > > > > >>> > Derek > > > > >>> > On Thu, Aug 6, 2009 at 1:19 PM, marius d. <marius.dan...@gmail.com > > > > >>> wrote: > > > > >>> > > Probably building our own wrappers would be more lightweight then > > >>> 3-rd > > >>> > > party. Jus' guessing > > > > >>> > > Br's, > > >>> > > Marius > > > > >>> > > On Aug 6, 9:58 pm, Derek Chen-Becker <dchenbec...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > >>> > > > Well, I started looking at it and determined that the only way > for > > >>> us to > > >>> > > > truly log the queries would be to essentially make our own > wrappers > > >>> over > > >>> > > > Statement and PreparedStatement. There are projects (log4jdbc, > > >>> notably) > > >>> > > that > > >>> > > > already do this, and in a transparent manner. I'm not sure that > > >>> adding a > > >>> > > > whole bunch of SQL logging directly to Lift is better than > > >>> leveraging > > >>> > > some > > >>> > > > existing libraries to do it. > > > > >>> > > > Derek > > > > >>> > > > On Thu, Aug 6, 2009 at 11:03 AM, marius d. < > > >>> marius.dan...@gmail.com> > > >>> > > wrote: > > > > >>> > > > > Yeah we're aware of that. That is based on toString > application > > >>> which > > >>> > > > > is JDBC driver dependent. I think Derek started some work on > this > > >>> to > > >>> > > > > correct this behavior. Derek ? > > > > >>> > > > > Br's, > > >>> > > > > Marius > > > > >>> > > > > On Aug 6, 8:01 pm, jon <jonhoff...@gmail.com> wrote: > > >>> > > > > > Hi, > > > > >>> > > > > > I have the following in boot: > > >>> > > > > > DB.addLogFunc((query, len) => Log.info("The query: > "+query+" > > >>> took > > >>> > > > > > "+len+" milliseconds")) > > > > >>> > > > > > I was expecting the query parameter to be sql, but it's > > >>> actually some > > >>> > > > > > sort of guid > > > > >>> > > > > > "INFO - The query: 6839c016-0122-f09a-9c96-0000003844e8 > took 5 > > >>> > > > > > milliseconds" > > > > >>> > > > > > Any ideas? > > >>> > > > > > I'm running with derby. > > > > >>> > > > > > Thanks, > > > > >>> > > > > > Jon > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Lift" group. To post to this group, send email to liftweb@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to liftweb+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/liftweb?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
