The class is needed because it is a name and a value (two items) that has to be
represented as a single parameter to Logger methods. Using raw int or String
is not a good alternative.
Ralph
On Jan 25, 2014, at 4:54 PM, Scott Deboy <scott.de...@gmail.com> wrote:
> If levels are just a name and a value why require a class at all? What about
> just having it defined in the configuration.
>
> On Jan 25, 2014 4:37 PM, "Ralph Goers" <ralph.go...@dslextreme.com> wrote:
> 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
>
