My first implementation used a real enum that implemented a Level interface. I
have to agree with Nick that what is currently committed is simpler.
Ralph
On Jan 26, 2014, at 4:00 PM, Matt Sicker <boa...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Don't annotation processing plugins work well in IDEs? Either way, there's a
> maven plugin already available for doing that, and javac has some sort of
> support for it already.
>
> Also, I'm still advocating for using a real enum for Level while providing a
> Level interface for all the relevant methods.
>
> And can't getCustomLogger also provide a default method that uses the
> getClassName method?
>
>
> On 26 January 2014 17:51, Nick Williams <nicho...@nicholaswilliams.net> wrote:
> Generating a logger /interface/ is going to be hard. Sure, writing the code
> automatically will be a piece of cake. But then what do we do with that code?
> The user needs to program against it. So we have to have a command-line
> utility or Maven/Ant plug-in to generate the source pre-compile. However,
> since the vast majority of users are using IDEs, those IDEs will still warn
> them about the interface not existing until they have run the utility to
> generate the source.
>
> I think a better approach would be to allow the user to define an interface
> that /must/ extend Logger. That interface may contain any methods that match
> the following signatures (the interface must have at least one method and
> there is no limit to the number of methods it may have):
>
> void(Marker, Message)
> void(Marker, Message, Throwable t)
> void(Marker, Object)
> void(Marker, Object, Throwable t)
> void(Marker, String)
> void(Marker, String, Object...)
> void(Marker, String throwable)
> void(Message)
> void(Message, Throwable t)
> void(Object)
> void(Object, Throwable t)
> void(String)
> void(String, Object...)
> void(String throwable)
>
> Each method /must/ be annotated with @LoggingLevel(name = "levelName"). Now
> LogManager has a few new methods:
>
> <T extends Logger> T getCustomLogger(Class<T> loggerClass)
> <T extends Logger> T getCustomLogger(Class<T> loggerClass, Class<?>)
> <T extends Logger> T getCustomLogger(Class<T> loggerClass, Class<?>,
> MessageFactory)
> <T extends Logger> T getCustomLogger(Class<T> loggerClass, MessageFactory)
> <T extends Logger> T getCustomLogger(Class<T> loggerClass, Object)
> <T extends Logger> T getCustomLogger(Class<T> loggerClass, Object,
> MessageFactory)
> <T extends Logger> T getCustomLogger(Class<T> loggerClass, String)
> <T extends Logger> T getCustomLogger(Class<T> loggerClass, String,
> MessageFactory)
>
> The user can then obtain such a logger like so, etc.:
>
> MyLogger logger = LogManager.getCustomLogger(MyLogger.class);
>
> Log4j will generate an implementation of MyLogger that extends the default
> implementation, cache that implementation so that it doesn't have to be
> implemented again, and then instantiate/cache the logger instance like normal.
>
> Make sense?
>
> N
>
> On Jan 26, 2014, at 5:32 PM, Scott Deboy wrote:
>
>> Yes that's what I was thinking.
>>
>> Scott
>>
>> On Jan 26, 2014 3:18 PM, "Remko Popma" <remko.po...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Scott,
>> The way I interpreted Gary's idea was that based on user-specified custom
>> levels, we would generate an extension of the Logger interface that has a
>> method for each of the custom levels (well, actually 14 methods for each
>> level :-) ).
>> I haven't really thought about how users would specify their custom levels,
>> as long as the tool can know what methods to generate.
>>
>> We could go one step further and generate the Level subclass from
>> configuration as well. I suppose that would entail adding a new <Levels>
>> element, with sub-elements like <Level name="DETAIL" intLevel="450" />... Is
>> that what you are thinking of?
>>
>> I would be fine with that too, but would like to first focus on generating
>> the extended Logger interface.
>>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 5:29 AM, Scott Deboy <scott.de...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Is there a way to generate code/update the Levels enumeration so a new
>> Level class isn't required?
>>
>> Would be great to be able to use logger.detail("Detail message");
>>
>> Is that what you're thinking of, Remko?
>>
>> On 1/26/14, Ralph Goers <ralph.go...@dslextreme.com> wrote:
>> > I haven’t done anything to directly do that. However, custom levels need to
>> > be mapped to the standard levels in several places. It would be simple to
>> > add support for that wherever you want it. Level.StdLevel.getStdLevel() is
>> > the method used to do that.
>> >
>> > Ralph
>> >
>> > On Jan 26, 2014, at 7:45 AM, Scott Deboy <scott.de...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> Are these serialization-wise going to be the same as standard levels?
>> >>
>> >> Receivers and apps like Chainsaw would benefit from not requiring the
>> >> originating level class be included in the classpath.
>> >>
>> >> I'm thinking about socketreceiver and to a lesser extent
>> >> logfilepatternreceiver.
>> >>
>> >> Scott
>> >> On Jan 26, 2014 7:28 AM, "Scott Deboy" <scott.de...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> So I assume we could build on this by adding the ability to generate these
>> >> custom levels from the config, with no user provided class required?
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> On Jan 26, 2014 12:58 AM, "Ralph Goers" <ralph.go...@dslextreme.com>
>> >> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> > I have completed the work on custom levels. It uses a variation of
>> >> > Nick’s “extensible enum” class. The major difference with what he
>> >> > proposed is that the custom enums must be declared in a class annotated
>> >> > with @Plugin(name=“xxxx” category=“Level”) for them to be usable during
>> >> > configuration.
>> >> >
>> >> > Are their any objections to me checking this in? I’ll be doing the
>> >> > commit at around noon Pacific Daylight Time if I don’t hear any.
>> >> >
>> >> > Ralph
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > On Jan 25, 2014, at 7:08 AM, Ralph Goers <ralph.go...@dslextreme.com>
>> >> > 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
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>>>
>> >> >>>>> The extensible enum solution satisfies all of us who are opposed to
>> >> >>>>> adding pre-defined levels, while also satisfying the original
>> >> >>>>> requirement raised by Nick and yourself. Frankly I don't understand
>> >> >>>>> why you would still want the pre-defined levels.
>> >> >>>>>
>> >> >>>>> Remko
>> >> >>>>>
>> >> >>>>>
>> >> >>>>>
>> >> >>>>> On Sat, Jan 25, 2014 at 12:53 AM, Gary Gregory
>> >> >>>>> <garydgreg...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> >>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>> On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 10:45 PM, Remko Popma
>> >> >>>>>> <remko.po...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> >>>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>>> Gary,
>> >> >>>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>>> I think that's a very cool idea!
>> >> >>>>>>> Much more flexible, powerful and elegant than pre-defined levels
>> >> >>>>>>> could ever be.
>> >> >>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>> As I wrote: "I am discussing custom levels here with the
>> >> >>>>>> understanding that this is a separate topic from what the built-in
>> >> >>>>>> levels are."
>> >> >>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>> I'm not sure why you want to make the features mutually exclusive.
>> >> >>>>>> (Some) others agree that these are different features.
>> >> >>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>> I see two topics:
>> >> >>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>> - What are the default levels for a 21st century logging framework.
>> >> >>>>>> Do we simply blindly copy Log4j 1? Or do we look at frameworks from
>> >> >>>>>> different languages and platforms for inspiration?
>> >> >>>>>> - How (not if, I think we all agree) should we allow for custom
>> >> >>>>>> levels.
>> >> >>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>> Gary
>> >> >>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>>> It definitely makes sense to design the extensible enum with this
>> >> >>>>>>> potential usage in mind.
>> >> >>>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>>> Remko
>> >> >>>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>>> On Friday, January 24, 2014, Gary Gregory <garydgreg...@gmail.com>
>> >> >>>>>>> wrote:
>> >> >>>>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>>>> I am discussing custom levels here with the understanding that
>> >> >>>>>>>> this is a separate topic from what the built-in levels are. Here
>> >> >>>>>>>> is how I convinced myself that custom levels are a “good thing”.
>> >> >>>>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>>>> No matter which built-in levels exits, I may want custom levels.
>> >> >>>>>>>> For example, I want my app to use the following levels DEFCON1,
>> >> >>>>>>>> DEFCON2, DEFCON3, DEFCON4, and DEFCON5. This might be for one
>> >> >>>>>>>> part of my app or a whole subsystem, no matter, I want to use the
>> >> >>>>>>>> built-in levels in addition to the DEFCON levels. It is worth
>> >> >>>>>>>> mentioning that if I want that feature only as a user, I can
>> >> >>>>>>>> “skin” levels in a layout and assign any label to the built-in
>> >> >>>>>>>> levels. If I am also a developer, I want to use DEFCON levels in
>> >> >>>>>>>> the source code.
>> >> >>>>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>>>> At first, my code might look like:
>> >> >>>>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>>>> logger.log(DefconLevels.DEFCON5, “All is quiet”);
>> >> >>>>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>>>> Let’s put aside for now the type of DefconLevels.DEFCON* objects.
>> >> >>>>>>>> I am a user, and I care about my call sites.
>> >> >>>>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>>>> What I really want of course is to write:
>> >> >>>>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>>>> defconLogger.defcon5(“All is quiet”)
>> >> >>>>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>>>> Therefore, I argue that for any “serious” use of a custom level,
>> >> >>>>>>>> I will wrap a Logger in a custom logger class providing call-site
>> >> >>>>>>>> friendly methods like defcon5(String).
>> >> >>>>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>>>> So now, as a developer, all I care about is DefConLogger. It
>> >> >>>>>>>> might wrap (or subclass) the Log4J Logger, who knows. The
>> >> >>>>>>>> implementation of DefConLogger is not important to the developer
>> >> >>>>>>>> (all I care is that the class has ‘defconN’ method) but it is
>> >> >>>>>>>> important to the configuration author. This tells me that as a
>> >> >>>>>>>> developer I do not care how DefConLogger is implemented, with
>> >> >>>>>>>> custom levels, markers, or elves. However, as configuration
>> >> >>>>>>>> author, I also want to use DEFCON level just like the built-in
>> >> >>>>>>>> levels.
>> >> >>>>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>>>> The configuration code co
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>> --
>> >> >>>> E-Mail: garydgreg...@gmail.com | ggreg...@apache.org
>> >> >>>> Java Persistence with Hibernate, Second Edition
>> >> >>>> JUnit in Action, Second Edition
>> >> >>>> Spring Batch in Action
>> >> >>>> Blog: http://garygregory.wordpress.com
>> >> >>>> Home: http://garygregory.com/
>> >> >>>> Tweet! http://twitter.com/GaryGregory
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: log4j-dev-unsubscr...@logging.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: log4j-dev-h...@logging.apache.org
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
> --
> Matt Sicker <boa...@gmail.com>
