+1
On Jun 15, 2014 4:05 PM, "Ralph Goers" <ralph.go...@dslextreme.com> wrote:
> Do we need the builders? As I said, I prefer only one way for creating
> plugins.
>
> Ralph
>
> On Jun 15, 2014, at 2:49 PM, Remko Popma <remko.po...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I see. I agree that the original format is much nicer.
>
> Matt, do you think you can achieve this with the builders?
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On 2014/06/16, at 1:29, Ralph Goers <ralph.go...@dslextreme.com> wrote:
>
> While you improved some of the existing messages, you really didm’t
> address what I wanted fixed. The previous debug logs would have had
> messages similar to:
>
> Calling createLayout on class
> org.apache.logging.log4j.core.layout.PatternLayout for element
> PatternLayout with params(pattern="%d{HH:mm:ss.SSS} [%t] %-5level
> %logger{36} - %msg%n",
> Configuration(D:\rista\eclipsekws\.metadata\.plugins\org.eclipse.wst.server.core\tmp1\wtpwebapps\log4j2.0-test\WEB-INF\classes\test-log4j.xml),
> null, charset="null", alwaysWriteExceptions="null")
>
> Calling createAppender on class
> org.apache.logging.log4j.core.appender.ConsoleAppender for element Console
> with params(PatternLayout(%d{HH:mm:ss.SSS} [%t] %-5level %logger{36} -
> %msg%n), null, target="SYSTEM_OUT", name="console", follow="null",
> ignoreExceptions="null")
>
> Calling createAppenderRef on class
> org.apache.logging.log4j.core.config.AppenderRef for element appender-ref
> with params(ref="console", level="null", null)
> 2013-09-20 15:06:55,749 DEBUG Calling createLogger on class
> org.apache.logging.log4j.core.config.LoggerConfig$RootLogger for element
> root with params(additivity="null", level="error", includeLocation="null",
> AppenderRef={console}, Properties={},
> Configuration(D:\rista\eclipsekws\.metadata\.plugins\org.eclipse.wst.server.core\tmp1\wtpwebapps\log4j2.0-test\WEB-INF\classes\test-log4j.xml),
> null)
>
> The current log emits stuff like:
>
> 2014-06-15 09:07:19,432 DEBUG Building Plugin[name=layout,
> class=org.apache.logging.log4j.core.layout.XmlLayout]. Searching for
> builder factory method...
> 2014-06-15 09:07:19,435 DEBUG No builder factory method found in class
> org.apache.logging.log4j.core.layout.XmlLayout.
> 2014-06-15 09:07:19,435 DEBUG Still building Plugin[name=layout,
> class=org.apache.logging.log4j.core.layout.XmlLayout]. Searching for
> factory method...
> 2014-06-15 09:07:19,436 DEBUG Found factory method [createLayout]: public
> static org.apache.logging.log4j.core.layout.XmlLayout
> org.apache.logging.log4j.core.layout.XmlLayout.createLayout(boolean,boolean,boolean,boolean,java.nio.charset.Charset).
> 2014-06-15 09:07:19,436 DEBUG Generating parameters for factory method
> [createLayout]...
> 2014-06-15 09:07:19,456 DEBUG Attribute(locationInfo="false") - no value
> specified, using default.
> 2014-06-15 09:07:19,456 DEBUG Attribute(properties="false") - no value
> specified, using default.
> 2014-06-15 09:07:19,457 DEBUG Attribute(complete="true") - no value
> specified, using default.
> 2014-06-15 09:07:19,457 DEBUG Attribute(compact="false") - no value
> specified, using default.
> 2014-06-15 09:07:19,457 DEBUG Attribute(charset="UTF-8") - no value
> specified, using default.
> 2014-06-15 09:07:19,587 DEBUG Built Plugin[name=layout] OK from factory
> method.
> 2014-06-15 09:07:19,588 DEBUG Building Plugin[name=appender,
> class=org.apache.logging.log4j.core.appender.FileAppender]. Searching for
> builder factory method...
> 2014-06-15 09:07:19,588 DEBUG No builder factory method found in class
> org.apache.logging.log4j.core.appender.FileAppender.
> 2014-06-15 09:07:19,589 DEBUG Still building Plugin[name=appender,
> class=org.apache.logging.log4j.core.appender.FileAppender]. Searching for
> factory method...
> 2014-06-15 09:07:19,589 DEBUG Found factory method [createAppender]:
> public static org.apache.logging.log4j.core.appender.FileAppender
> org.apache.logging.log4j.core.appender.FileAppender.createAppender(java.lang.String,java.lang.String,java.lang.String,java.lang.String,java.lang.String,java.lang.String,java.lang.String,java.lang.String,org.apache.logging.log4j.core.Layout,org.apache.logging.log4j.core.Filter,java.lang.String,java.lang.String,org.apache.logging.log4j.core.config.Configuration).
> 2014-06-15 09:07:19,589 DEBUG Generating parameters for factory method
> [createAppender]...
> 2014-06-15 09:07:19,595 DEBUG
> Attribute(fileName="target/XmlCompleteFileAppenderTest.log")
> 2014-06-15 09:07:19,596 DEBUG Attribute(append="false")
> 2014-06-15 09:07:19,596 DEBUG Attribute(locking="null")
> 2014-06-15 09:07:19,596 DEBUG Attribute(name="XmlFile")
> 2014-06-15 09:07:19,597 DEBUG Attribute(immediateFlush="false")
> 2014-06-15 09:07:19,597 DEBUG Attribute(ignoreExceptions="null")
> 2014-06-15 09:07:19,597 DEBUG Attribute(bufferedIo="null")
> 2014-06-15 09:07:19,598 DEBUG Attribute(bufferSize="null")
> 2014-06-15 09:07:19,598 DEBUG
> XMLLayout(org.apache.logging.log4j.core.layout.XmlLayout@5eef9f84)
> 2014-06-15 09:07:19,598 DEBUG Attribute(advertise="null")
> 2014-06-15 09:07:19,599 DEBUG Attribute(advertiseUri="null")
> 2014-06-15 09:07:19,599 DEBUG
> Configuration(/Users/rgoers/projects/apache/logging/log4j/log4j2/trunk/log4j-core/target/test-classes/XmlCompleteFileAppenderTest.xml)
> 2014-06-15 09:07:19,601 DEBUG Starting FileManager
> target/XmlCompleteFileAppenderTest.log
>
> The previous format was a lot more compact as it essentially showed you
> the parameters being passed to the factory method in one line while
> identifying the class it came from and the configuration element that
> triggered it. The new log emits that info as individual lines with a few
> messages that are just noise.
>
> Ralph
>
>
>
>
> On Jun 14, 2014, at 10:11 PM, Remko Popma <remko.po...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I've done some work on this, there may be more places to improve, I mainly
> focused on PluginBuilder and PluginAttributeVisitor.
>
>
>
> On Thu, Jun 12, 2014 at 2:09 AM, Matt Sicker <boa...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Yeah, I liked the prettier logging format. I was planning to add it back
>> in, but it appears as though I completely forgot about it! The "new" format
>> was a quick placeholder. I'll try and work on that this week.
>>
>>
>> On 10 June 2014 19:47, Gary Gregory <garydgreg...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Maybe Matt can shed a light on this?
>>>
>>> Gary
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 8:43 PM, Ralph Goers <rgo...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I don't know exactly what I would be vetoing. I have no problem with
>>>> some of the refactoring. The commit(s) that changed the logging probably
>>>> happened weeks ago and I am just noticing now.
>>>>
>>>> But yes, I want the logging aspect of the changes reverted back to what
>>>> was previously being done.
>>>>
>>>> Sent from my iPad
>>>>
>>>> On Jun 10, 2014, at 5:34 PM, Gary Gregory <garydgreg...@gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Well, for Log4j Plugins, one way to configure should be plenty. I am OK
>>>> with the factory method pattern, while it makes for some long signatures, I
>>>> like that it is all in one place.
>>>>
>>>> May I suggest a simple "-1" reply on the ML on the changes to logging?
>>>> Do you feel a VETO is inappropriate here?
>>>>
>>>> Gary
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 7:57 PM, Ralph Goers <rgo...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I think the discussion was not on its own thread. I thought there was
>>>>> agreement that there should be only one way to configure plugins. I
>>>>> prefer
>>>>> the factory method simply because it would be a whole lot of effort to
>>>>> convert everything to a builder and I just don't think the benefit is
>>>>> worth
>>>>> the effort.
>>>>>
>>>>> I spent a lot of time making the debug output "nice" and easily
>>>>> understandable so I am a bit upset that it was tossed and replaced with
>>>>> what you see below.
>>>>>
>>>>> Ralph
>>>>>
>>>>> Sent from my iPad
>>>>>
>>>>> On Jun 10, 2014, at 4:31 PM, Gary Gregory <garydgreg...@gmail.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 7:11 PM, Ralph Goers <
>>>>> ralph.go...@dslextreme.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> I am working on a new Appender and am noticing that the debug output
>>>>>> is now far less useful than it used to be. I used to see the factory
>>>>>> method
>>>>>> being invoked with all of its parameters very nicely formatted. Now I
>>>>>> see
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 2014-06-10 16:02:37,858 DEBUG No compatible method annotated with
>>>>>> interface
>>>>>> org.apache.logging.log4j.core.config.plugins.PluginBuilderFactory
>>>>>> found in class class
>>>>>> org.apache.logging.log4j.web.appender.ServletAppender.
>>>>>> 2014-06-10 16:02:37,858 DEBUG Found factory method class
>>>>>> org.apache.logging.log4j.web.appender.ServletAppender.public static
>>>>>> org.apache.logging.log4j.web.appender.ServletAppender
>>>>>> org.apache.logging.log4j.web.appender.ServletAppender.createAppender(org.apache.logging.log4j.core.Layout,org.apache.logging.log4j.core.Filter,java.lang.String,java.lang.String).
>>>>>> 2014-06-10 16:02:37,864 DEBUG Constructing plugin of type class
>>>>>> org.apache.logging.log4j.web.appender.ServletAppender
>>>>>> 2014-06-10 16:02:37,864 DEBUG PatternLayout(%m%n)
>>>>>> 2014-06-10 16:02:37,864 DEBUG Constructing plugin of type class
>>>>>> org.apache.logging.log4j.web.appender.ServletAppender
>>>>>> 2014-06-10 16:02:37,865 DEBUG Constructing plugin of type class
>>>>>> org.apache.logging.log4j.web.appender.ServletAppender
>>>>>> 2014-06-10 16:02:37,865 DEBUG Attribute(name="Servlet")
>>>>>> 2014-06-10 16:02:37,865 DEBUG Constructing plugin of type class
>>>>>> org.apache.logging.log4j.web.appender.ServletAppender
>>>>>> 2014-06-10 16:02:37,865 DEBUG Null string given to convert. Using
>>>>>> default [null].
>>>>>> 2014-06-10 16:02:37,866 DEBUG Attribute(ignoreExceptions="null")
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This is far more verbose, repetitive, and is nowhere near as clear as
>>>>>> it used to be.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Can you please get the logging output back to the old format?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Also, can we change PatternLayout back to a factory and remove the
>>>>>> message about no builder factory being present?
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I think we need to decide how many ways there are to configure a
>>>>> plugin: factory, builder, and whatever else we've been discussing. This is
>>>>> getting quite confusing!
>>>>>
>>>>> I thought we had a thread going on the topic already...
>>>>>
>>>>> Gary
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Ralph
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> E-Mail: garydgreg...@gmail.com | ggreg...@apache.org
>>>>> Java Persistence with Hibernate, Second Edition
>>>>> <http://www.manning.com/bauer3/>
>>>>> JUnit in Action, Second Edition <http://www.manning.com/tahchiev/>
>>>>> Spring Batch in Action <http://www.manning.com/templier/>
>>>>> Blog: http://garygregory.wordpress.com
>>>>> Home: http://garygregory.com/
>>>>> Tweet! http://twitter.com/GaryGregory
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> E-Mail: garydgreg...@gmail.com | ggreg...@apache.org
>>>> Java Persistence with Hibernate, Second Edition
>>>> <http://www.manning.com/bauer3/>
>>>> JUnit in Action, Second Edition <http://www.manning.com/tahchiev/>
>>>> Spring Batch in Action <http://www.manning.com/templier/>
>>>> Blog: http://garygregory.wordpress.com
>>>> Home: http://garygregory.com/
>>>> Tweet! http://twitter.com/GaryGregory
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> E-Mail: garydgreg...@gmail.com | ggreg...@apache.org
>>> Java Persistence with Hibernate, Second Edition
>>> <http://www.manning.com/bauer3/>
>>> JUnit in Action, Second Edition <http://www.manning.com/tahchiev/>
>>> Spring Batch in Action <http://www.manning.com/templier/>
>>> Blog: http://garygregory.wordpress.com
>>> Home: http://garygregory.com/
>>> Tweet! http://twitter.com/GaryGregory
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Matt Sicker <boa...@gmail.com>
>>
>
>
>
>
