So far, I've implemented choice #2 to some extent. On 9 September 2014 23:47, Ralph Goers <[email protected]> wrote:
> If I was implementing this I would take a custom JUL level and map it to > the appropriate predefined JUL level. That would then map to a Log4j level. > > Ralph > > On Sep 9, 2014, at 9:19 PM, Remko Popma <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On Wednesday, September 10, 2014, Matt Sicker <[email protected]> wrote: > >> There's actually a bit of an interesting challenge in converting from a >> custom level in JUL to Log4j. JUL allows you to use any integer value >> possible (not just non-negative ones). Also, their progression of level >> values goes in reverse of ours. Thus, any level above 1000 (Level.SEVERE in >> JUL) would need to be squeezed into the range of 1 to 99! Plus, >> Integer.MAX_VALUE indicates StandardLevel.ALL, but Level.OFF in JUL. Then >> there'd be the other way around, too. >> >> Darn! That makes things tricky indeed... > Just throwing out some thoughts: > > 1. Full auto: We could have some mapping logic that converts the custom > JUL int level to a log4j int that is between the mapped built-in levels. > (TBD: how to avoid collisions if multiple custom levels are defined between > built-in levels?) > > 2. Semi-auto: we define an interface that converts JUL levels to Log4j > levels. We provide a default impl for the built-in levels. Users need to > provide their own impl (or extend ours?) if they have custom JUL levels. > (TBD: how does our default impl handle undefined custom JUL levels?) > > 3. Config only: this depends on > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LOG4J2-589 > Custom log4j levels are defined in configuration. The log4j config file is > loaded first, so the JUL bridge can convert custom levels using the name > only. It can completely ignore the JUL int level. > > 4. Easiest: we (initially) don't support custom JUL levels. Unknown > levels are converted to some ad hoc log4j level. Let's say, INFO, but we > can decide to use any level. > > > >> As to those fields, I think we can probably drop them. LogRecord >> dynamically calculates them from the Throwable stacktrace if necessary. We >> do it faster. >> > > Phew! > >> >> On 9 September 2014 22:07, Matt Sicker <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> 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]> >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> Matt Sicker <[email protected]> >> > > -- Matt Sicker <[email protected]>
