Hi Martijn
Thank you for doing that. I'm afraid it is going to be hard enough
anyway to keep myself updated on all feedback given :)
For me it is a matter of course that these kind of discussions should be
held in the open. We are all stake holders in this.
As long as the discussion does not turn in to 'bike-shedding' or someone
is deliberately trying to pervert the intention of the JEP I will try to
keep it in the open as much as possible.
Cheers
/Fredrik
On 2014-05-18 13:26, Martijn Verburg wrote:
Hi Fredrik,
I've asked all of the discussions on our list to be fed back here or
directly to you. Thanks for opening the discussion, we really
appreciate it!
Cheers,
Martijn
On Sunday, 18 May 2014, Fredrik Arvidsson
<fredrik.arvids...@oracle.com <mailto:fredrik.arvids...@oracle.com>>
wrote:
Hi Richard
I will add more text in the JEP describing the intent of the
hierarchical logger design. As you said, it is not that clear in
the current one. Thanks.
Regarding out off band discussions. I have noted that and I will
try to keep myself updated to that. It is not optimal to have
discussions in many places and I will not be able to screen all
the internets for this information. But this is what we have to
deal with I am afraid.
Cheers
/Fredrik
On 2014-05-18 11:47, Richard Warburton wrote:
Hi Fredrik,
In the JEP I tried to explain the concept of 'sub' loggers
but I
did not put in anything about the intent of having them. I
think
that your requirement easily could be solved using sub
loggers, or
sub components if you like that wording better.
Loggers are ordered in an hierarchical tree where 'gc'
might be
the root for all logging in the gc 'area'. The 'details',
'cause'
and 'safepoint' content types could be translated in to sub
loggers to the 'gc' logger. By setting log level for the
separate
sub loggers to enable logging I cant see that you would not be
able to get the filtering you want. By using log levels
wisely you
will be able to get even more control over what gets
output in the
logs. The above was a much simplified example, in reality you
would probably have a more elaborate tree of gc loggers.
There is
nothing in the logger three hierarchy approach that
implies that
they should be big blocks of stuff.
Logging topics, tags, or markers were something we
considered at
the beginning of the design phase but we came to the
conclusion
that we probably could solve the requirements by using sub
loggers
instead.
Please tell me if you don't think this approach would
work, and in
that case why.
Thanks for clarifying this point. I think this explanation
addresses how that particular use case is met. I suspect that
it might be worth adding a bit more explanation around this
topic to the JEP itself, because I don't think I'm the only
person with this concern.
Also a heads up that there's discussion happening related to
this topic off-list at:
https://groups.google.com/a/jclarity.com/forum/#!topic/friends/NA0EyOJk6bs
<https://groups.google.com/a/jclarity.com/forum/#%21topic/friends/NA0EyOJk6bs>
<https://groups.google.com/a/jclarity.com/forum/#%21topic/friends/NA0EyOJk6bs>
regards,
Richard Warburton
http://insightfullogic.com
@RichardWarburto <http://twitter.com/richardwarburto>
--
Cheers,
Martijn
