9:15 a.m.
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
11:43 a.m.
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.
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
12:57 p.m.
----- 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.
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
5:02 p.m.
----- 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
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
5:25 p.m.
----- 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.)
>
> 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
5:34 p.m.
----- 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.
> >
> > 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
6:07 p.m.
----- 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.
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
>
> > >
> > > 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
7:19 p.m.
----- 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).
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
>
7:27 p.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
> >
>
8:17 p.m.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Alon Bar-Lev" <alonbl(a)redhat.com>
To: "Martin Perina" <mperina(a)redhat.com>
Cc: devel(a)ovirt.org, "Greg Sheremeta" <gshereme(a)redhat.com>
Sent: Sunday, June 15, 2014 6:27:09 PM
Subject: Re: [ovirt-devel] Question/thoughts about our engine logging framework
----- 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.
Not entirely true. We are using JBoss version of log4j to configure logging.
But we cannot use slf4j provided by JBoss, because it can use as a backend
only JBoss Logging and not log4j. I just verified that if slf4j is used
in engine-manage-domains, it's not logged to the file configured by log4j.
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.
In java.utils.logging you cannot use varargs in simple way (which is for me
one of the main reason to use slf4j):
log.info("Hello: {} {} {}", p1, p2, p3);
but you have to create new array of params:
log.info("Hello: {} {} {}", new Object[] { p1, p2, p3});
or format message outside logging framework:
log.info(String.format("Hello: %s %s %s", p1, p2, p3));
And this "external formatting" is the only way for commons-logging framework.
> 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
> > >
> >
>
8:44 p.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 8:17:13 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: devel(a)ovirt.org, "Greg Sheremeta" <gshereme(a)redhat.com>
> Sent: Sunday, June 15, 2014 6:27:09 PM
> Subject: Re: [ovirt-devel] Question/thoughts about our engine logging
> framework
>
>
>
> ----- 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.
Not entirely true. We are using JBoss version of log4j to configure logging.
But we cannot use slf4j provided by JBoss, because it can use as a backend
only JBoss Logging and not log4j. I just verified that if slf4j is used
in engine-manage-domains, it's not logged to the file configured by log4j.
> 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.
In java.utils.logging you cannot use varargs in simple way (which is for me
one of the main reason to use slf4j):
log.info("Hello: {} {} {}", p1, p2, p3);
but you have to create new array of params:
log.info("Hello: {} {} {}", new Object[] { p1, p2, p3});
or format message outside logging framework:
log.info(String.format("Hello: %s %s %s", p1, p2, p3));
And this "external formatting" is the only way for commons-logging framework.
You did not understand.
1. use log4j or apache commons within application.
2. use java.logging as logging infra.
>
> > 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
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
4:22 p.m.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Alon Bar-Lev" <alonbl(a)redhat.com>
To: "Martin Perina" <mperina(a)redhat.com>
Cc: devel(a)ovirt.org, "Greg Sheremeta" <gshereme(a)redhat.com>
Sent: Sunday, June 15, 2014 7:44:22 PM
Subject: Re: [ovirt-devel] Question/thoughts about our engine logging framework
----- 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 8:17:13 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: devel(a)ovirt.org, "Greg Sheremeta" <gshereme(a)redhat.com>
> > Sent: Sunday, June 15, 2014 6:27:09 PM
> > Subject: Re: [ovirt-devel] Question/thoughts about our engine logging
> > framework
> >
> >
> >
> > ----- 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.
>
> Not entirely true. We are using JBoss version of log4j to configure
> logging.
> But we cannot use slf4j provided by JBoss, because it can use as a backend
> only JBoss Logging and not log4j. I just verified that if slf4j is used
> in engine-manage-domains, it's not logged to the file configured by log4j.
>
> > 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.
>
> In java.utils.logging you cannot use varargs in simple way (which is for me
> one of the main reason to use slf4j):
>
> log.info("Hello: {} {} {}", p1, p2, p3);
>
> but you have to create new array of params:
>
> log.info("Hello: {} {} {}", new Object[] { p1, p2, p3});
>
> or format message outside logging framework:
>
> log.info(String.format("Hello: %s %s %s", p1, p2, p3));
>
> And this "external formatting" is the only way for commons-logging
> framework.
You did not understand.
Well, I'm not sure I understand even now, but see my response :-)
1. use log4j or apache commons within application.
That's not a good idea because both doesn't support simple varargs.
We want use slf4j to be able to use this:
log.info("Hello: {} {} {}", p1, p2, p3);
2. use java.logging as logging infra.
Well, AFAIK JBoss reimplements java.logging backend and redirects
it to its own backend (JBoss Logging). No sure, if we will be able
(or want) to bypass this redirection and use java.logging as backend
for engine. Not to mention, there will always be server.log for JBoss
infra logging.
And for engine-manage-domains and engine-config we would have to
drop command line configuration using log4j introduced in 3.5 and
for next version change it to java.logging configuration
So personally I don't see any benefit of this change for users nor
developers ...
>
> >
> > > 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
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
4:26 p.m.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Martin Perina" <mperina(a)redhat.com>
To: "Alon Bar-Lev" <alonbl(a)redhat.com>
Cc: devel(a)ovirt.org
Sent: Monday, June 16, 2014 4:22:16 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: devel(a)ovirt.org, "Greg Sheremeta" <gshereme(a)redhat.com>
> Sent: Sunday, June 15, 2014 7:44:22 PM
> Subject: Re: [ovirt-devel] Question/thoughts about our engine logging
> framework
>
>
>
> ----- 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 8:17:13 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: devel(a)ovirt.org, "Greg Sheremeta"
<gshereme(a)redhat.com>
> > > Sent: Sunday, June 15, 2014 6:27:09 PM
> > > Subject: Re: [ovirt-devel] Question/thoughts about our engine logging
> > > framework
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ----- 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.
> >
> > Not entirely true. We are using JBoss version of log4j to configure
> > logging.
> > But we cannot use slf4j provided by JBoss, because it can use as a
> > backend
> > only JBoss Logging and not log4j. I just verified that if slf4j is used
> > in engine-manage-domains, it's not logged to the file configured by
> > log4j.
> >
> > > 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.
> >
> > In java.utils.logging you cannot use varargs in simple way (which is for
> > me
> > one of the main reason to use slf4j):
> >
> > log.info("Hello: {} {} {}", p1, p2, p3);
> >
> > but you have to create new array of params:
> >
> > log.info("Hello: {} {} {}", new Object[] { p1, p2, p3});
> >
> > or format message outside logging framework:
> >
> > log.info(String.format("Hello: %s %s %s", p1, p2, p3));
> >
> > And this "external formatting" is the only way for commons-logging
> > framework.
>
> You did not understand.
Well, I'm not sure I understand even now, but see my response :-)
> 1. use log4j or apache commons within application.
That's not a good idea because both doesn't support simple varargs.
We want use slf4j to be able to use this:
log.info("Hello: {} {} {}", p1, p2, p3);
I am sorry, had a typo... it should have been:
1. use slf4j or apache commons within application.
> 2. use java.logging as logging infra.
Well, AFAIK JBoss reimplements java.logging backend and redirects
it to its own backend (JBoss Logging). No sure, if we will be able
(or want) to bypass this redirection and use java.logging as backend
for engine. Not to mention, there will always be server.log for JBoss
infra logging.
And for engine-manage-domains and engine-config we would have to
drop command line configuration using log4j introduced in 3.5 and
for next version change it to java.logging configuration
So personally I don't see any benefit of this change for users nor
developers ...
yes, and drop the usage of log4j entirely.
>
> >
> > >
> > > > 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
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
4:49 p.m.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Alon Bar-Lev" <alonbl(a)redhat.com>
To: "Martin Perina" <mperina(a)redhat.com>
Cc: devel(a)ovirt.org
Sent: Monday, June 16, 2014 3:26:00 PM
Subject: Re: [ovirt-devel] Question/thoughts about our engine logging framework
----- Original Message -----
> From: "Martin Perina" <mperina(a)redhat.com>
> To: "Alon Bar-Lev" <alonbl(a)redhat.com>
> Cc: devel(a)ovirt.org
> Sent: Monday, June 16, 2014 4:22:16 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: devel(a)ovirt.org, "Greg Sheremeta" <gshereme(a)redhat.com>
> > Sent: Sunday, June 15, 2014 7:44:22 PM
> > Subject: Re: [ovirt-devel] Question/thoughts about our engine logging
> > framework
> >
> >
> >
> > ----- 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 8:17:13 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: devel(a)ovirt.org, "Greg Sheremeta"
<gshereme(a)redhat.com>
> > > > Sent: Sunday, June 15, 2014 6:27:09 PM
> > > > Subject: Re: [ovirt-devel] Question/thoughts about our engine
logging
> > > > framework
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ----- 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.
> > >
> > > Not entirely true. We are using JBoss version of log4j to configure
> > > logging.
> > > But we cannot use slf4j provided by JBoss, because it can use as a
> > > backend
> > > only JBoss Logging and not log4j. I just verified that if slf4j is used
> > > in engine-manage-domains, it's not logged to the file configured by
> > > log4j.
> > >
> > > > 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.
> > >
> > > In java.utils.logging you cannot use varargs in simple way (which is
> > > for
> > > me
> > > one of the main reason to use slf4j):
> > >
> > > log.info("Hello: {} {} {}", p1, p2, p3);
> > >
> > > but you have to create new array of params:
> > >
> > > log.info("Hello: {} {} {}", new Object[] { p1, p2, p3});
> > >
> > > or format message outside logging framework:
> > >
> > > log.info(String.format("Hello: %s %s %s", p1, p2, p3));
> > >
> > > And this "external formatting" is the only way for
commons-logging
> > > framework.
> >
> > You did not understand.
>
> Well, I'm not sure I understand even now, but see my response :-)
>
> > 1. use log4j or apache commons within application.
>
> That's not a good idea because both doesn't support simple varargs.
> We want use slf4j to be able to use this:
>
> log.info("Hello: {} {} {}", p1, p2, p3);
>
I am sorry, had a typo... it should have been:
1. use slf4j or apache commons within application.
OK, now I understand, so if agreed then we will use slf4j.
So if we agree to slf4j, I plan to use slf4j in engine (the only
exception is java.logging in GWT related parts of code), remove
dependency to other logging frameworks (log4j, commons-logging)
and remove internal logging framework (org.ovirt.engine.core.utils.log)
>
> > 2. use java.logging as logging infra.
>
> Well, AFAIK JBoss reimplements java.logging backend and redirects
> it to its own backend (JBoss Logging). No sure, if we will be able
> (or want) to bypass this redirection and use java.logging as backend
> for engine. Not to mention, there will always be server.log for JBoss
> infra logging.
>
> And for engine-manage-domains and engine-config we would have to
> drop command line configuration using log4j introduced in 3.5 and
> for next version change it to java.logging configuration
>
> So personally I don't see any benefit of this change for users nor
> developers ...
yes, and drop the usage of log4j entirely.
OK, so migrate from log4j to java.logging backend in engine-manage-domains
and engine-config ...
>
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > > 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
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
5:14 p.m.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Martin Perina" <mperina(a)redhat.com>
To: "Alon Bar-Lev" <alonbl(a)redhat.com>
Cc: devel(a)ovirt.org
Sent: Monday, June 16, 2014 4:49:57 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: devel(a)ovirt.org
> Sent: Monday, June 16, 2014 3:26:00 PM
> Subject: Re: [ovirt-devel] Question/thoughts about our engine logging
> framework
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Martin Perina" <mperina(a)redhat.com>
> > To: "Alon Bar-Lev" <alonbl(a)redhat.com>
> > Cc: devel(a)ovirt.org
> > Sent: Monday, June 16, 2014 4:22:16 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: devel(a)ovirt.org, "Greg Sheremeta"
<gshereme(a)redhat.com>
> > > Sent: Sunday, June 15, 2014 7:44:22 PM
> > > Subject: Re: [ovirt-devel] Question/thoughts about our engine logging
> > > framework
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ----- 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 8:17:13 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: devel(a)ovirt.org, "Greg Sheremeta"
<gshereme(a)redhat.com>
> > > > > Sent: Sunday, June 15, 2014 6:27:09 PM
> > > > > Subject: Re: [ovirt-devel] Question/thoughts about our engine
> > > > > logging
> > > > > framework
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > ----- 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.
> > > >
> > > > Not entirely true. We are using JBoss version of log4j to configure
> > > > logging.
> > > > But we cannot use slf4j provided by JBoss, because it can use as a
> > > > backend
> > > > only JBoss Logging and not log4j. I just verified that if slf4j is
> > > > used
> > > > in engine-manage-domains, it's not logged to the file configured
by
> > > > log4j.
> > > >
> > > > > 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.
> > > >
> > > > In java.utils.logging you cannot use varargs in simple way (which is
> > > > for
> > > > me
> > > > one of the main reason to use slf4j):
> > > >
> > > > log.info("Hello: {} {} {}", p1, p2, p3);
> > > >
> > > > but you have to create new array of params:
> > > >
> > > > log.info("Hello: {} {} {}", new Object[] { p1, p2, p3});
> > > >
> > > > or format message outside logging framework:
> > > >
> > > > log.info(String.format("Hello: %s %s %s", p1, p2, p3));
> > > >
> > > > And this "external formatting" is the only way for
commons-logging
> > > > framework.
> > >
> > > You did not understand.
> >
> > Well, I'm not sure I understand even now, but see my response :-)
> >
> > > 1. use log4j or apache commons within application.
> >
> > That's not a good idea because both doesn't support simple varargs.
> > We want use slf4j to be able to use this:
> >
> > log.info("Hello: {} {} {}", p1, p2, p3);
> >
>
> I am sorry, had a typo... it should have been:
>
> 1. use slf4j or apache commons within application.
OK, now I understand, so if agreed then we will use slf4j.
So if we agree to slf4j, I plan to use slf4j in engine (the only
exception is java.logging in GWT related parts of code), remove
dependency to other logging frameworks (log4j, commons-logging)
and remove internal logging framework (org.ovirt.engine.core.utils.log)
>
> >
> > > 2. use java.logging as logging infra.
> >
> > Well, AFAIK JBoss reimplements java.logging backend and redirects
> > it to its own backend (JBoss Logging). No sure, if we will be able
> > (or want) to bypass this redirection and use java.logging as backend
> > for engine. Not to mention, there will always be server.log for JBoss
> > infra logging.
> >
> > And for engine-manage-domains and engine-config we would have to
> > drop command line configuration using log4j introduced in 3.5 and
> > for next version change it to java.logging configuration
> >
> > So personally I don't see any benefit of this change for users nor
> > developers ...
>
> yes, and drop the usage of log4j entirely.
OK, so migrate from log4j to java.logging backend in engine-manage-domains
and engine-config ...
Right.
I opened a bug[1]
[1] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1109871
>
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > 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
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
3619
days inactive
3622
days old
14 comments
6 participants
participants (6)
-
Alon Bar-Lev -
Eli Mesika -
Greg Sheremeta -
Martin Perina -
Vojtech Szocs -
Yair Zaslavsky