sfl4j as our front-end logger just went in (HBASE-10092) thanks to Balazs
Meszaros code-fu and our Appy review (with some timely input from our
comrades over in slf4j2).
There'll be some teething issues to be addressed in the next few days but
going forward, from here on out, as we go, we need to
On Tue, Dec 19, 2017 at 7:29 AM, Balazs Meszaros <
balazs.mesza...@cloudera.com> wrote:
> Thanks for reviewing Appy!
>
> 1. I tried to verify it, log level changes take place through the web ui.
> 2. I put back fatals.
> 3. The property files are still compatible, because I have not updated
>
I remember doing the research for this many moons ago on a different
project, and dynamically setting log levels (like we do via web ui) is
simply not supported in slf4j.
On Tue, Dec 19, 2017 at 9:29 AM, Balazs Meszaros <
balazs.mesza...@cloudera.com> wrote:
> Thanks for reviewing Appy!
>
> 1. I
Thanks for reviewing Appy!
1. I tried to verify it, log level changes take place through the web ui.
2. I put back fatals.
3. The property files are still compatible, because I have not updated
log4j to log4j2 yet. But they won't be compatible after the update.
4. I also updated those projects.
Thanks for the ping here Stack. Posted review on the jira.
Summary is, we need at least:
1) basic verification
2) fatal markers
3) clear picture on properties file: Is old one compatible? if not, we need
new ones and document what's breaking. New ones and documentation can be
done in followup, but
Oh, just 60 pages of review :D
-- Appy
On Mon, Dec 18, 2017 at 3:48 PM, Stack wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 13, 2017 at 10:09 AM, Stack wrote:
>
> > On Mon, Dec 11, 2017 at 12:49 PM, Apekshit Sharma
> > wrote:
> >
> >> Seems like good idea:
> >>
On Wed, Dec 13, 2017 at 10:09 AM, Stack wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 11, 2017 at 12:49 PM, Apekshit Sharma
> wrote:
>
>> Seems like good idea:
>> - remove long dead dependency
>> - a bit cleaner code
>> - hadoop also moved to slf4j
>>
>> Quickly looking at codebase
On Mon, Dec 11, 2017 at 12:49 PM, Apekshit Sharma wrote:
> Seems like good idea:
> - remove long dead dependency
> - a bit cleaner code
> - hadoop also moved to slf4j
>
> Quickly looking at codebase to get idea of amount of work required, here
> are some numbers:
> - LOG.debug
Just to clarify, I did not help with the migration... I've been
helping, piecemeal, to review comments for spelling, grammar,
contractions and to remove code guards in favor of parameters.
On Sat, Dec 9, 2017 at 11:22 PM, Stack wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 9, 2017 at 6:03 PM, Apekshit
Seems like good idea:
- remove long dead dependency
- a bit cleaner code
- hadoop also moved to slf4j
Quickly looking at codebase to get idea of amount of work required, here
are some numbers:
- LOG.debug : ~1800
- LOG.trace : ~500
- LOG.info: ~3000
Looking at this patch (
On Sat, Dec 9, 2017 at 6:03 PM, Apekshit Sharma wrote:
> +1 for dropping dependency which has been EOL for long now.
>
> What does the work here looks like? Change dependency, update properties
> file, changed log messages, what else?
>
>
The Hadoop issue has some
+1 for dropping dependency which has been EOL for long now.
What does the work here looks like? Change dependency, update properties
file, changed log messages, what else?
Given upcoming beta1 release, what's the minimum work required to change
just the dependency? Is it possible to make code
Related, should we move to slf4j for hbase2?
This comes of the issue opened by Beluga:"HBASE-19449 Implement SLF4J and
SLF4J Parameter Substitution"
In the issue, Duo reminded us of the recent hadoop move to slf4j.The issue
is HADOOP-12956. It begins:
"5 August 2015 --The Apache Logging
Hello Team,
Maybe it's time to finally realize the dream of HBASE-10092
Once the logging infrastructure is upgraded, I would be happy to
assist in reviewing and improving the log messages. I've done a bit
of similar work for the Hive project. It's tedious but doesn't
require deep knowledge of
14 matches
Mail list logo