I'm actually thinking of some sort of LogRecordMessage or similar which takes a useful subset of LogRecord.
On 9 September 2014 21:01, Matt Sicker <[email protected]> wrote: > I've got ranges in place to map to standard levels, but custom level > support is currently done through the MDC. Should I use a MapMessage > instead? Make a new Message type just for log4j-jul? There's metadata in > some of these Logger methods that I'd like to include, but if the MDC isn't > the best way to do that, then I'd prefer another way. I noticed that > pax-logging does this for every log event to include some metadata about > the OSGi bundle that made the log call, so I kept up the style. > > As to the static field, yes, I noticed that, too. It's only for a sequence > number, and we have our own (better) way of doing that with on-demand > sequencing (and using the AtomicXxx classes indeed) anyways. > > On 9 September 2014 20:39, Remko Popma <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Fro a performance point of view, it would be great if we could avoid >> creating LogRecord instances. Not just from a GC perspective, but in java6 >> the LogRecord constructor synchronizes on a static variable(!): big >> bottleneck. This is improved (using AtomicXxx) in java7. >> >> Also would great if we can avoid using the ThreadContext MDC for every >> log event. (Its copy-on-write design is not a good match for this usage...) >> >> Would there be a way to map custom JUL log levels to custom Log4j levels? >> >> Sent from my iPhone >> >> On 2014/09/10, at 10:20, Matt Sicker <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Actually, now that I look at it, I can just use an inner class with >> ExtendedLoggerWrapper to get at those protected methods I mentioned. I >> mean, that appears to be the point of it! Let me see if it does everything >> I needed. >> >> On 9 September 2014 20:08, Matt Sicker <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> Now that I'm looking at this, what's the point of all the methods that >>> take a FQCN instead of having just the ones in ExtendedLogger? I'm not sure >>> why we didn't just use a field in AbstractLogger in the first place. >>> >>> On 9 September 2014 19:14, Matt Sicker <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> I'm making some changes to log4j-jul to reduce redundant time spent >>>> constructing a LogRecord that I don't even want to use most of the time. >>>> However, the ExtendedLogger interface (which I need to use at the very >>>> least so that I can set the fqcn to java.util.logging.Logger) only provides >>>> a single version of logMessage (unlike AbstractLogger which has a bunch), >>>> and several methods like catching(), throwing(), etc., all depend on >>>> protected methods in AbstractLogger that I'd rather not re-implement. It >>>> would be nice if I could just call the Logger methods I need, but they all >>>> get called with the wrong fqcn. >>>> >>>> Can we use a non-static final field that contains the fqcn? If I could, >>>> I'd extend AbstractLogger myself, but I already have to extend the JUL >>>> Logger class (should have been an interface, grrr). Thus, I can't rely on >>>> AbstractLogger being the source of all these method calls. Unlike the other >>>> adapters, JUL provides more various logger calls than we even have, and I >>>> don't think ExtendedLogger was written with this scenario in mind. >>>> >>>> I don't think this should be too large an impact of a change. I'm going >>>> to push up a proposal, but feel free to veto it or offer some suggestions! >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Matt Sicker <[email protected]> >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Matt Sicker <[email protected]> >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> Matt Sicker <[email protected]> >> >> > > > -- > Matt Sicker <[email protected]> > -- Matt Sicker <[email protected]>
