Because we don’t know the class name that the Level belongs to. It is
referenced in the configuration just as “DIAG”, not
“org.apache.logging.test.ExtendedLevel.DIAG”.
In any case I fixed it. I just annotated the new Level as a Plugin and then
look up all the Level plugins in BaseConfiguration. Simply calling the
getEnumConstants method on each of the classes does the trick.
Ralph
On Jan 25, 2014, at 4:26 PM, Paul Benedict <pbened...@apache.org> wrote:
> If you made it a requirement for the constructor to register, why not just
> instantiate each level as you encounter it in the config?
>
>
> On Sat, Jan 25, 2014 at 6:06 PM, Ralph Goers <ralph.go...@dslextreme.com>
> wrote:
> Hmm. It seems I am going to have to do something to force the registration as
> the custom level class hasn’t been constructed before the levels are
> referenced in the configuration.
>
> Ralph
>
> On Jan 25, 2014, at 3:43 PM, Ralph Goers <ralph.go...@dslextreme.com> wrote:
>
>> In the constructor each of them calls Levels.addLevel(this).
>>
>> Ralph
>>
>> On Jan 25, 2014, at 2:21 PM, Remko Popma <remko.po...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Interesting! So, users would add custom levels by creating a new enum that
>>> implements the Level interface? How does the new enum get registered? In
>>> config or in code?
>>>
>>> Just trying to understand how it works...
>>>
>>> (With Nick's class I understood how that would work: users would extend the
>>> Level class and pass an instance of that class to the Logger.log() methods;
>>> in config they could specify the new Level name, and the
>>> Level.toLevel(String, Level) method would find the custom instance in a
>>> static HashMap in the Level superclass.)
>>>
>>> On Sunday, January 26, 2014, Ralph Goers <ralph.go...@dslextreme.com> wrote:
>>> Here is what I am implementing:
>>>
>>> 1. Level is now an Interface. This allows the vast amount of code to
>>> continue to work.
>>> 2. The current Level enum has been renamed to StdLevel. It implements the
>>> Level interface.
>>> 3. A new class named Levels is in the spi package of the API. It contains a
>>> ConcurrentMap containing all the registered Levels as well as the static
>>> methods that were previously part of the Level enum.
>>>
>>> For the most part the conversion to this has been pretty easy. The most
>>> frustrating part was that I had to move the toLevel methods from what was
>>> the Level enum to the Levels class as static methods are not allowed in
>>> interfaces until Java 8. This meant I had to modify several classes to use
>>> Levels.toLevel instead of Level.toLevel. In addition, a few classes were
>>> using the valueOf enum method. Those were converted to use Levels.getLevel.
>>>
>>> The few places were Level is actually used as an enum were also pretty easy
>>> to handle as in those cases the custom levels need to be converted to a
>>> StdLevel and then that enum is used.
>>>
>>> Unless anyone objects I plan on committing this later today once I finish
>>> it and create some tests and documentation.
>>>
>>> Ralph
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Jan 25, 2014, at 12:49 PM, Nicholas Williams
>>> <nicho...@nicholaswilliams.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> No, of course, everyone seems to agree that custom levels should be
>>>> permitted. But I never heard agreement on whether we were going the
>>>> extensible enum route or the Level-as-interface route. The camp still
>>>> seemed to disagree on that.
>>>>
>>>> Nick
>>>>
>>>> Sent from my iPhone, so please forgive brief replies and frequent typos
>>>>
>>>> On Jan 25, 2014, at 11:20, Ralph Goers <ralph.go...@dslextreme.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I have not heard anyone disagree with allowing custom Levels. The
>>>>> disagreement I am hearing is over adding new pre-defined levels.
>>>>>
>>>>> Ralph
>>>>>
>>>>> On Jan 25, 2014, at 7:29 AM, Nick Williams
>>>>> <nicho...@nicholaswilliams.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> I may have missed something. Did we decide on an approach? Last I heard,
>>>>>> the camp was still split: Some wanted to go with my extensible enum,
>>>>>> others wanted to change Level to an interface and make a Levels enum.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So I'm a bit confused. Which implementation are you working on?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Nick
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Jan 25, 2014, at 7:08 AM, Ralph Goers wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I am working on the implementation of custom levels now. I should have
>>>>>>> it done today.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Ralph
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Jan 24, 2014, at 7:07 PM, Remko Popma <remko.po...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> What is the best way to make progress on the custom levels
>>>>>>>> implementation?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Do we re-open LOG4J-41 or start a fresh Jira ticket? For
>>>>>>>> implementation ideas, do we attach files to Jira, or create a branch?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Remko
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Saturday, January 25, 2014, Gary Gregory <garydgreg...@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Fri, Jan 24, 2014 at 11:48 AM, Remko Popma <remko.po...@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>> Gary,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The hard-coded levels were proposed because it seemed that the
>>>>>>>> extensible enum idea raised by Nick was not going to be accepted.
>>>>>>>> My original position was that Markers could fulfill the requirement
>>>>>>>> but Nick and yourself made it clear that this was not satisfactory.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> With extensible enums and markers off the table it seemed that the
>>>>>>>> hard-coded levels was the only alternative, and discussion ensued
>>>>>>>> about what these levels should be called and what strength they should
>>>>>>>> have.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> During this discussion, several people, including me, repeatedly
>>>>>>>> expressed strong reservations about adding pre-defined levels, but by
>>>>>>>> this time I think people were thinking there was no alternative.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It looked like we were getting stuck, with half the group moving in
>>>>>>>> one direction ("add pre-defined levels!") and the other half wanting
>>>>>>>> to move in another direction ("don't add pre-defined levels!"). I
>>>>>>>> asked that we re-reviewed our assumptions and try to reach a solution
>>>>>>>> that would satisfy all users.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> We then decided to explore the option of using extensible enums again.
>>>>>>>> This is still ongoing, but I haven't seen anyone arguing against this
>>>>>>>> idea since we started this thread.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Hard-coded levels and the extensible enum are different solutions to
>>>>>>>> the same problem.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Hello All:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Absolutely not. See my DEFCON example.
>>>>>>>> Talking about an "extensible enum" is mixing design and
>>>>>>>> implementation, we are talking about 'custom' and/or 'extensible'
>>>>>>>> levels.
>>>>>>>> Custom/Extensible levels can be designed to serve one or all of:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> - Allow inserting custom levels between built-in levels.
>>>>>>>> - Allow for domain specific levels outside of the concept of built-in
>>>>>>>> levels, the DEFCON example.
>>>>>>>> - Should the custom levels themselves be extensible?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Gary
>>>>>>>>
>>
>
>
>
>
> --
> Cheers,
> Paul
