What about the logp, entering, exiting, and throwing methods which all take a source class name and a source method name? Just ignore them?
On 9 September 2014 21:40, Remko Popma <[email protected]> wrote: > My take would be to drop the seqNo and threadID integer, and for level, > check if its a built-in JUL level which can be translated to a built-in > log4j level. If it's not a built-in JUL level we can do a log4j > Level.forName() call to create that custom level in log4j as well. > Thoughts? > > Sent from my iPhone > > On 2014/09/10, at 11:07, Matt Sicker <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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]> > > -- Matt Sicker <[email protected]>
