11:27 a.m.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Martin Perina" <mperina(a)redhat.com>
To: "Alon Bar-Lev" <alonbl(a)redhat.com>
Cc: devel(a)ovirt.org, "Greg Sheremeta" <gshereme(a)redhat.com>
Sent: Sunday, June 15, 2014 7:19:15 PM
Subject: Re: [ovirt-devel] Question/thoughts about our engine logging framework
----- Original Message -----
> From: "Alon Bar-Lev" <alonbl(a)redhat.com>
> To: "Martin Perina" <mperina(a)redhat.com>
> Cc: "Greg Sheremeta" <gshereme(a)redhat.com>, devel(a)ovirt.org
> Sent: Sunday, June 15, 2014 5:07:28 PM
> Subject: Re: [ovirt-devel] Question/thoughts about our engine logging
> framework
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Martin Perina" <mperina(a)redhat.com>
> > To: "Greg Sheremeta" <gshereme(a)redhat.com>
> > Cc: devel(a)ovirt.org
> > Sent: Sunday, June 15, 2014 5:34:51 PM
> > Subject: Re: [ovirt-devel] Question/thoughts about our engine logging
> > framework
> >
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: "Greg Sheremeta" <gshereme(a)redhat.com>
> > > To: "Yair Zaslavsky" <yzaslavs(a)redhat.com>
> > > Cc: devel(a)ovirt.org
> > > Sent: Sunday, June 15, 2014 4:25:54 PM
> > > Subject: Re: [ovirt-devel] Question/thoughts about our engine logging
> > > framework
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > From: "Eli Mesika" <emesika(a)redhat.com>
> > > > To: "Yair Zaslavsky" <yzaslavs(a)redhat.com>
> > > > Cc: devel(a)ovirt.org
> > > > Sent: Sunday, June 15, 2014 10:02:15 AM
> > > > Subject: Re: [ovirt-devel] Question/thoughts about our engine
logging
> > > > framework
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > From: "Vojtech Szocs" <vszocs(a)redhat.com>
> > > > > To: "Martin Perina" <mperina(a)redhat.com>
> > > > > Cc: devel(a)ovirt.org
> > > > > Sent: Friday, June 13, 2014 12:57:49 PM
> > > > > Subject: Re: [ovirt-devel] Question/thoughts about our engine
> > > > > logging
> > > > > framework
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > > From: "Martin Perina" <mperina(a)redhat.com>
> > > > > > To: "Yair Zaslavsky" <yzaslavs(a)redhat.com>
> > > > > > Cc: devel(a)ovirt.org
> > > > > > Sent: Friday, June 13, 2014 10:43:59 AM
> > > > > > Subject: Re: [ovirt-devel] Question/thoughts about our
engine
> > > > > > logging
> > > > > > framework
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Hi Yair,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I had in my mind to clean up logging framework mess for
quite
> > > > > > some
> > > > > > time
> > > > > > :-)
> > > > > > Currently this is the usage of logging frameworks in
engine
> > > > > > classes:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > java.util.logging.Logger 6.8%
> > > > > > org.apache.commons.logging.Log 7.8%
> > > > > > org.apache.log4j.Logger 13.6%
> > > > > > org.ovirt.engine.core.utils.log.Log 68.8%
> > > > > > org.slf4j.Logger 2.9%
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I think we should definitely use only 1 logging framework
for the
> > > > > > whole
> > > > > > engine!
> > > > > >
> > > > > > So +1 to slf4j from me.
> > > > >
> > > > > +1 from me as well.
> > > >
> > > > +1
> > > >
> > > +1 to slf4j. I started using that exclusively in Java projects 4 years
> > > ago
> > > :)
> > >
> > > Just be careful if we're introducing it as a new dependency.
(It's
> > > provided
> > > by Fedora, but there might be conflicts if JBoss/Wildfly uses it. We
> > > should
> > > use that same version, if it does.)
> >
> > We already have a dependency to slf4j 1.7.5 in the root pom.xml. And
> > AFAIK
> > 1.7.2 is a part of EAP 6.
>
> The jboss we are using provides slf4j-1.6.1, while it seems to be patched
> to
> support varargs[1] as 1.7.x.
Ha, you are right, inside JBoss it works, because they did the same thing as
with
log4j. They provide same classes as slf4j, but with their own different
implementation with JBoss Logging backend :-(
So if you compile with slf4j 1.7, you can use varargs even when JBoss tries
to tell
us it provides slf4j 1.6 ...
> As standalone at fedora there is slf4j which is compatible and at rhel
> there
> is slf4j-eap6 both are 1.7.x.
> However for centos we use jpackage which provides only 1.6.1[2].
> So for standalone packages we may experience issues if were build using
> varargs.
>
> [1] logger.debug("format", obj1, obj2, obj3, ...)
> [2] http://jpackage.org/browser/rpm.php?jppversion=6.0&id=12435
AFAIK the only non JBoss usage of logging is at engine-config and
engine-manage-domains.
So we have 2 options:
1) Use log4j in engine-config and engine-manage-domains (current status)
and use
slf4j in the rest of engine
2) Package slf4j 1.7.x as our dependency
I would prefer option 1).
No... we use jboss modules within these, so you actually using jboss version.
The only one that does not use jboss modules is dwh, in which we do not control logging
anyway.
We just need to make sure that standalone application either use commons-logging
(primitive) or slf4j-1.6.x for now.
And in either case to use java.util.loggings as infa and not log4j if not too late for
that.
Btw in RHEL7 there is packaged slf4j 1.7.5
>
> >
> > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Note that GWT UI code uses java.util.logging exclusively to do
all
> > > > > logging.
> > > > > (GWT emulates java.util.logging API and provides log handlers
for
> > > > > use
> > > > > on
> > > > > client side such as console.log() or
stdout/DevMode-during-debug
> > > > > handlers.)
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > And once we agree to 1 logging framework, I can start
preparing
> > > > > > patches
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > use it.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > > > From: "Yair Zaslavsky"
<yzaslavs(a)redhat.com>
> > > > > > > To: devel(a)ovirt.org
> > > > > > > Sent: Friday, June 13, 2014 8:15:55 AM
> > > > > > > Subject: [ovirt-devel] Question/thoughts about our
engine
> > > > > > > logging
> > > > > > > framework
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Hi all,
> > > > > > > During my recent work on AAA, I was suggested by Juan
Hernandez
> > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > use
> > > > > > > slf4j
> > > > > > > logging framework which serves as a facade for other
logging
> > > > > > > frameworks
> > > > > > > (including java utils logging which is now used by
jboss),
> > > > > > > log4j
> > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > others.
> > > > > > > I have accepted Juan's offer, and then when
looking at our
> > > > > > > LogFactory
> > > > > > > class
> > > > > > > I
> > > > > > > have noticed we use commons logging.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Several thoughts/questions -
> > > > > > > A. Why continue use our own wrapper as slf4j is
already a
> > > > > > > facade.
> > > > > > > b. I think we should move cross java code to slf4j.
What do you
> > > > > > > think
> > > > > > > on
> > > > > > > this
> > > > > > > point?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Some reading material -
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
http://javarevisited.blogspot.com.au/2013/08/why-use-sl4j-over-log4j-for-...
> > > > > > >
http://stackoverflow.com/questions/3222895/what-is-the-issue-with-the-run...
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Yair
> > > > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > > > Devel mailing list
> > > > > > > Devel(a)ovirt.org
> > > > > > > http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > > Devel mailing list
> > > > > > Devel(a)ovirt.org
> > > > > > http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
> > > > > >
> > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > Devel mailing list
> > > > > Devel(a)ovirt.org
> > > > > http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
> > > > >
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > Devel mailing list
> > > > Devel(a)ovirt.org
> > > > http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
> > > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Devel mailing list
> > > Devel(a)ovirt.org
> > > http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
> > >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Devel mailing list
> > Devel(a)ovirt.org
> > http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
> >
>