The problem we had in tel he past was with the life cycle class IIRC. Gary
-------- Original message -------- From: Matt Sicker <[email protected]> Date: 10/18/2015 02:39 (GMT-08:00) To: Log4J Developers List <[email protected]> Subject: Re: Is there anything besides the Logger name that uniquely identifies a Logger? Alright, thanks for the heads up. On 18 October 2015 at 04:24, Remko Popma <[email protected]> wrote: Hi Matt, sorry, but please don't add equals/hashCode implementation to AbstractLogger. Concrete subclasses are okay of course.We had a few issues with this with another abstract Log4j class (can't find the Jira ticket now). On Sun, Oct 18, 2015 at 2:00 PM, Matt Sicker <[email protected]> wrote: Alright, I've got a pretty simple Serializable proxy class written. I'd like to add equals() and hashCode() to AbstractLogger to aid in unit tests and to formalize this concept of Logger uniqueness. On 16 October 2015 at 22:01, Matt Sicker <[email protected]> wrote: The LocalizedMessageFactory constructor taking a ResourceBundle does raise an issue. Java 8 added a getBaseBundleName() method, but there's nothing for 7. On 15 October 2015 at 17:42, Gary Gregory <[email protected]> wrote: Out of all the message factories, it looks like LocalizedMessageFactory is only one that needs special treatment because you cannot serialize a resource bundle. But we have the name, so that should be good enough. Gary On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 7:49 AM, Matt Sicker <[email protected]> wrote: Well, as AbstractLogger is indeed Serializable, it looks like there's no way to remove that at this point. Making the MessageFactory Serializable sounds feasible. Are there any other components that may need to be serialized? If not, I can go ahead with the implementation. On 15 October 2015 at 09:15, Mikael Ståldal <[email protected]> wrote: I dislike to have to make a class Serializable just because some stupid framework (or stupid use of some non-stupid framework) requires it. I guess it was a mistake to make org.apache.logging.log4j.spi.AbstractLogger Serializable in the first place. On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 6:56 AM, Ralph Goers <[email protected]> wrote: Well, MessageFactory is not Serializable but AbstractMessageFactory is. If the MessageFactory used by the Logger is serializable we could include it. If it is not we would have to treat it as transient. Upon deserialization we may find that the MessageFactory implementation doesn’t exist on the target platform, in which case we would have to just use the default. Ralph On Oct 14, 2015, at 8:27 PM, Gary Gregory <[email protected]> wrote: What if a logger does not use the default message factory? Gary -------- Original message -------- From: Ralph Goers <[email protected]> Date: 10/14/2015 19:32 (GMT-08:00) To: Log4J Developers List <[email protected]> Subject: Re: Is there anything besides the Logger name that uniquely identifies a Logger? I am not sure why you would need or want to serialize any plugins. Logger basically references the LoggerContext and the PrivateConfig. Both of these should be transient as it makes very little sense for those to be deserialized on a target implementation. But even serializing the actual Logger makes very little sense. On the target system you would want to call LogManager.getLogger(name) to recreate it. What I would suggest is to use the Proxy pattern that is used by Log4jLogEvent to serialize and deserialize the Logger. What would be different is that the serialization would basically only serialize the logger name and deserialization would call LogManager.getLogger(name). Ralph On Oct 14, 2015, at 7:02 PM, Matt Sicker <[email protected]> wrote: Basically, to naively serialize a Logger, you need to serialize all the plugins associated with it. As most things in log4j-core can be classified as either plugins or "framework" code, that's really most of the codebase. On 14 October 2015 at 18:00, Gary Gregory <[email protected]> wrote: If it's really 50%, then yeah, that's suspicious. I'd like to hear if Ralph or Remko have any insights here. Gary On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 3:04 PM, Matt Sicker <[email protected]> wrote: Most people use a static field to store the Logger, so most use cases don't require serialization. For instance fields, it might work better to declare it transient, and in that case, our implementation of Logger should not be Serializable at all. Otherwise, there are ways to serialize everything, but the way it looks, that will require making over 50% of the code base Serializable which doesn't smell right to me. On 14 October 2015 at 16:54, Gary Gregory <[email protected]> wrote: It would be a neat trick to only use the logger name for ser/deser. But a logger only exists in a LC, so how would you re-create the Logger object. LogManager.getLogger(String) can't account for the message factory for example. Would knowing the class within which the static Logger resides be enough to know which LC to use? I do not see how :-( I think we need Ralph's insight here. The alternative would be... to recommend that all Logger declarations be transient? That does not seen realistic, especially accounting for code you cannot change. Gary On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 2:48 PM, Matt Sicker <[email protected]> wrote: Perhaps besides a particular LoggerContext. I have an idea on how to significantly simplify the serialization of Logger, and if we can simply unserialize it based purely on its name, then that would save a lot of trouble. I don't remember if we've discussed this idea in the past, but I think this would be the best way to implement serialization in Logger. I wouldn't want to pass a Logger over the wire and clobber a possibly different configuration already in memory at the time, for instance. -- Matt Sicker <[email protected]> -- E-Mail: [email protected] | [email protected] 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 <[email protected]> -- E-Mail: [email protected] | [email protected] 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 <[email protected]> -- Mikael Ståldal Senior software developer Magine TV [email protected] Regeringsgatan 25 | 111 53 Stockholm, Sweden | www.magine.com Privileged and/or Confidential Information may be contained in this message. If you are not the addressee indicated in this message (or responsible for delivery of the message to such a person), you may not copy or deliver this message to anyone. In such case, you should destroy this message and kindly notify the sender by reply email. -- Matt Sicker <[email protected]> -- E-Mail: [email protected] | [email protected] 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 <[email protected]> -- Matt Sicker <[email protected]> -- Matt Sicker <[email protected]>
