Final fields may be quite important depending on the class. We should really
consider a change like making a field mutable carefully. Not that I am
advocating for builders in the first place, I am not.
Gary
<div>-------- Original message --------</div><div>From: Matt Sicker
<boa...@gmail.com> </div><div>Date:06/15/2014 19:31 (GMT-05:00)
</div><div>To: Log4J Developers List <log4j-dev@logging.apache.org>
</div><div>Subject: Re: debug output </div><div>
</div>Well, it could be done via the builders. The visit method just needs to
accept a StringBuilder to continue building the log message. I'll take a look
at this shortly.
And in regards to builders versus factories, I actually have a third option
that could reduce everything: prototypes. Instead of all the final fields we've
got in the various plugins, they could start off in a default state, and then
the setters and getters can be used as usual to configure it. This would
probably be the most natural way to go about doing it.
On 15 June 2014 18:04, 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
JUnit in Action, Second Edition
Spring Batch in Action
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
JUnit in Action, Second Edition
Spring Batch in Action
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
JUnit in Action, Second Edition
Spring Batch in Action
Blog: http://garygregory.wordpress.com
Home: http://garygregory.com/
Tweet! http://twitter.com/GaryGregory
--
Matt Sicker <boa...@gmail.com>
--
Matt Sicker <boa...@gmail.com>
