Sure. The fix is in ;-) I'll respond to that list on Monday.
On Sat, Jul 27, 2013 at 4:36 PM, Nick Williams < nicho...@nicholaswilliams.net> wrote: > You should +1 it! :-) > > N > > On Jul 27, 2013, at 4:35 PM, Paul Benedict wrote: > > Nick, thank you for writing up that email. I hope it gets some attention. > I subscribe to that list so I will be eager to see what, if any, responses > are to your proposal. Good job. > > Paul > > > On Sat, Jul 27, 2013 at 2:16 PM, Nick Williams < > nicho...@nicholaswilliams.net> wrote: > >> Meanwhile, there's still the little problem >> that sun.reflect.Reflection#getCallerClass(int) only exists in Sun JVMs and >> only prior to Java 7u25. This is used in more than one place in Log4j 2 and >> not consistently with a backup plan. I have an idea of what to do about >> that and I'll work on that later this weekend. >> >> N >> >> >> On Jul 27, 2013, at 2:03 PM, Nick Williams wrote: >> >> I have revived all the previous threads with a consolidated thread >> proposing an API that solves all of the needs that everyone has expressed. >> Chime-ins/+1s would be appreciated. Cross your fingers. >> >> http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/core-libs-dev/2013-July/019334.html >> >> Nick >> >> On Jul 27, 2013, at 1:46 PM, Paul Benedict wrote: >> >> I bought this up a couple of times too. Here's my latest: >> http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/core-libs-dev/2013-July/019118.html >> >> I jumped into the discussion because of @CallerSensitive. They were >> talking about getCallerClass() and I proposed they expose that as a public >> API. I see no reason why it shouldn't -- it is certainly useful in several >> situations. However, no Oracle employee ever responded to me. >> >> Paul >> >> >> On Sat, Jul 27, 2013 at 12:53 PM, Nick Williams < >> nicho...@nicholaswilliams.net> wrote: >> >>> By "ongoing" I meant that nothing had been agreed on yet. I've been >>> meaning to bring it back up and jump-start negotiations, and I'll do that >>> now. >>> >>> Nick >>> >>> >>> On Jul 27, 2013, at 12:40 PM, Ralph Goers wrote: >>> >>> I've read all of these plus a few that are linked from them and haven't >>> seen a concrete proposal for a fix that has been accepted. All the threads >>> appear to have stopped so I don't know how I should consider the >>> discussions "ongoing". >>> >>> I should point out that besides the enhanced throwable converters >>> ClassLoaderContextSelector also uses getCallerClass. It does that to >>> determine the ClassLoader of the Class that obtained the Logger so that we >>> can make sure it is associated with the LoggerContext associated with that >>> ClassLoader (which means that when an app is un-deployed all of its Loggers >>> are freed. >>> >>> Ralph >>> >>> >>> On Jul 27, 2013, at 9:15 AM, Nick Williams wrote: >>> >>> It was later pointed out to me that I was emailing the wrong list for >>> this kind of discussion. I've emailed the core libraries mailing list and >>> several thorough discussions have resulted. I made just the suggestion you >>> point out (get a stack trace from a Throwable that has Class objects in it) >>> [1] [2] [3]. Discussions are still ongoing and hopefully we can convince >>> them to do something. The more people we can have chiming in on these >>> threads, the better. >>> >>> Nick >>> >>> [1] >>> http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/core-libs-dev/2013-June/018049.html >>> [2] >>> http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/core-libs-dev/2013-June/018349.html >>> , >>> http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/core-libs-dev/2013-July/019098.html >>> [3] >>> http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/core-libs-dev/2013-July/018855.html >>> >>> On Jul 27, 2013, at 10:52 AM, Ralph Goers wrote: >>> >>> Thanks Jörn, >>> >>> This was first reported to us in May in LOG4J2-245. Nick sent a message >>> to the openjdk list at that time [1] but it seemed to be ignored. How >>> would you propose we convince Oracle? To be honest, I would much prefer >>> that I be able to get a stack trace from a Throwable that has the Class >>> objects in it, instead of just the class names. >>> >>> Ralph >>> >>> >>> >>> [1] >>> http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/java-se-8-spec-comments/2013-May/000014.html >>> >>> On Jul 26, 2013, at 2:43 AM, Jörn Huxhorn wrote: >>> >>> Hi everyone. >>> >>> I wanted to inform you about the following Logback issues since their >>> root causes will also impact log4j: >>> >>> http://jira.qos.ch/browse/LOGBACK-885 >>> https://github.com/qos-ch/logback/pull/136 >>> >>> In short: >>> sun.reflect.Reflection.getCallerClass >>> - changed behavior in Java7u25 since the stack frames have changed. >>> http://bugs.sun.com/view_bug.do?bug_id=8016814 >>> - will throw an UnsupportedOperationException in upcoming Java7u40. >>> http://bugs.sun.com/view_bug.do?bug_id=8014925 >>> - will be removed in Java8 with no replacement. >>> http://bugs.sun.com/view_bug.do?bug_id=8020785 >>> >>> https://github.com/qos-ch/logback/pull/136 contains a way to get >>> similar informations but, unfortunately, it is 100x slower >>> than sun.reflect.Reflection.getCallerClass. >>> >>> http://bugs.sun.com/view_bug.do?bug_id=8014925 contains the following >>> text: >>> "JEP-176 proposes to remove sun.reflect.Reflection.getCallerClass(int) >>> that has incompatibility concern since there are existing applications >>> depending on this private API such as Oracle Diagnostic Logging and >>> jidesoft library that breaks Oracle Primavera. >>> >>> The jdk part of JEP-176 has been backported to 7u25 but keep >>> sun.reflect.Reflection.getCallerClass(int) as the mitigration plan >>> (JDK-8014745) in 7u25. >>> >>> The following describes the transition plan to allow customers to >>> migrate their applications away from this private API: >>> 1. Disable sun.reflect.Reflection.getCallerClass(int) in 7u40 and >>> provide a flag to re-enable it >>> 2. Determine how this private API is being used and the use cases >>> 3. Remove this private API if there is no valid use case or there is a >>> proper replacement for it. Allow at least 2 CPU releases to allow customers >>> to make appropriate change. So the earliest for the removal is 7u55. If >>> there are valid use cases but no proper replacement, we may keep this >>> private API in jdk7u for longer." >>> I consider the use of this API in logging frameworks a very valid use >>> case, especially since the only replacements available would have severe >>> impact on the performance (other techniques like generating a Stacktrace >>> via Throwable are even slower than the SecurityManager workaround in the >>> pull request) - so we should probably all try to convince Oracle that a >>> proper replacement, ideally in a public API, is needed. >>> >>> Cheers, >>> Jörn. >>> >>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: log4j-dev-unsubscr...@logging.apache.org >>> For additional commands, e-mail: log4j-dev-h...@logging.apache.org >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> -- >> Cheers, >> Paul >> >> >> >> > > > -- > Cheers, > Paul > > > -- Cheers, Paul
