logging-log4j-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Ralph Goers (JIRA)" <j...@apache.org>
Subject [jira] [Commented] (LOG4J2-242) Make Messages more fluent
Date Thu, 30 May 2013 05:58:20 GMT

    [ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LOG4J2-242?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13670082#comment-13670082

Ralph Goers commented on LOG4J2-242:

I do not like having 


as it implies that the current log event will be created and then either stored in the Logger
or in a ThreadLocal. Since loggers are thread safe the event really can't be stored there,
leaving a ThreadLocal as the only way to accomplish this.  It also would have side effects
such as partially built log events that aren't delivered due to an intervening exception.
These partially built events would then bleed into the next log event.

An EventBuilder has some merit. However, it isn't clear to me how this is any better than
using the logging methods and specifying them as parameters.

As for varargs, StringFormatMessage and MessageFormatMessage should also detect the Throwable
and return it. They, along with ParameterizedMessage are really the only Messages that accept
varargs from the Log4j API - which is the reason this behavior is required. Other Messages,
such as SimpleMessage and ObjectMessage, can never be passed a Throwable in that way.
> Make Messages more fluent
> -------------------------
>                 Key: LOG4J2-242
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LOG4J2-242
>             Project: Log4j 2
>          Issue Type: Improvement
>          Components: API
>    Affects Versions: 2.0-beta5
>            Reporter: Bruce Brouwer
> I really like the feature were we can pass in a Message object into the logger methods.
However, it bugs me that some of the implementations of Message provide vararg constructors,
and others only provide an Object[] parameter. I really would like to write this code:
>     log.info(new ParameterizedMessage("abc: {} xyz: {}", abc, xyz), throwable);
> I realize that this particular example would work with this code by default:
>     log.info("abc: {} xyz: {}", abc, xyz, throwable);
> But the other Message implementations don't provide a vararg constructor, nor do they
try to detect the last parameter as a Throwable.
> [LOG4J2-48] addresses some of the complexity of having varargs with the last vararg being
an implicit final parameter, but again, this only works with ParameterizedMessage. But I would
like this to be more consistent across the board. One idea that I had was this:
>     log.info(new ParameterizedMessage("abc: {} xyz: {}", abc, xyz).throwing(throwable));
> Now all of the message constructors (not just ParameterizedMessage) could have varargs
with none of them providing a Throwable parameter in the constructor, but provided through
a more fluent API. I don't know that it would warrant adding it to the Message interface,
but we could go further with it by adding these methods:
>     Message withParameters(Object... parameters);
>     Message throwing(Throwable throwable);
> It wouldn't be absolutely necessary as the concrete implementations could define that
and work in my case.
> Another idea that I had was maybe a bit more impactful to the Logger API. What if I wrote
my code like this:
>     log.with(exception).info("abc: {} xyz: {}", abc, xyz);
>     // or maybe this
>     log.message("abc: {} xyz: {}", abc, xyz).with(exception).info();
> That would necessitate something like a LogBuilder interface, maybe tie it into the MessageFactory
classes. This LogBuilder interface could have these methods:
>     LogBuilder message(String pattern, Object... params);
>     LogBuilder with(Throwable t);
>     LogBuilder marker(Marker marker);
>     LogBuilder level(Level level);
>     void info(); // and others like it
>     void info(String pattern, Object... params); // and others like it
> I'm not exactly sure what the best way would be to go and implement this as I'm sure
you don't want to have objects created all over the place. 
> Is this an idea worth pursuing a bit further?

This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
If you think it was sent incorrectly, please contact your JIRA administrators
For more information on JIRA, see: http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira

To unsubscribe, e-mail: log4j-dev-unsubscribe@logging.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: log4j-dev-help@logging.apache.org

View raw message