RFR 8150840: Add an internal system property to control the default level of System.Logger when java.logging is not present.

[Daniel Fuchs]

Hi Mandy,

Here is the new webrev - I have added comments for the
string constants as well as for the permissions passed
through to the limited doPrivileged call:

http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~dfuchs/webrev_8150840/webrev.02/index.html

I hope that it makes it more clear that the
java.util.logging.* properties are only used when java.logging
is present, and the jdk.system.logger.* properties when
java.logging is not present.

best regards,

-- daniel

On 14/03/16 15:03, Daniel Fuchs wrote:
> Hi Mandy,
>
> On 06/03/16 00:29, Mandy Chung wrote:
>>
>>> On Mar 4, 2016, at 9:05 AM, Daniel Fuchs <daniel.fuchs at oracle.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~dfuchs/webrev_8150840/webrev.01/
>>
>>
>> Looks okay in general.
>>
>> I’m not a fan of using GetPropertyAction.  While it’s convenient as
>> the class already exists, method refs and anonymous class makes what
>> it does more explicit at the callsite.  No big deal.
>
> In this case I find that it nicely simplifies the code.
>
>> Does -Djava.util.logging.SimpleFormatter.format=… have any effect if
>> java.logging is absent (when used together with jdk.system.logger.level)?
>
> No - that was one of the purpose of splitting the
> SimpleConsoleLogger class in two (that is: introducing
> the SurrogateLogger subclass).
> The java.util.logging.* properties are only used with the
> SurrogateLogger - which is only used when java.logging is
> present and has no custom configuration and until the
> application triggers the initialization of the LogManager.
>
>> It’s one of the test cases in SimpleConsoleLoggerTest.  I would expect
>> java.util.logging.* properties are used fro java.util.logging
>> configuration only.
>
> Yes. That's what happens. The SimpleConsoleLoggerTest verifies that.
> I mean it verifies that these properties (java.logging.*) are only
> used by the SurrogateLogger subclass, and jdk.system.logger.* are only
> used by the (unsubclassed) SimpleConsoleLogger.
>
> Ideally there should be an abstract ConsoleLogger class with two
> concrete trivial implementations (SimpleConsoleLogger and
> SurrogateLogger) but that would be introducing yet another class
> so I left it with the simple single inheritance branch.
>
>
>> JUL_FORMAT_PROP_KEY is defined in SimpleConsoleLogger.  If I read it
>> correctly, it’s only used for the limited doPrivileged.
>>   472                     new PropertyPermission(JUL_FORMAT_PROP_KEY,
>> "read"));
>
> Yes. And in the SurrogateLogger subclass.
>
>> I was initially confused what SimpleConsoleLogger is done with
>> java.util.logging formatting.
>
> I see. Logically it belongs to SurrogateLogger but I didn't want
> to trigger the loading of the class if it's not used.
>
>>  If JUL_FORMAT_PROP_KEY is not referenced anywhere else, perhaps just
>> remove the constant variable and have a comment to explain this
>> getSimpleFormat method is shared with JUL?
>
> I'd rather keep the constant since it's used in two places. But adding a
> comment to clear up any confusion is certainly a good idea.
>
> best regards,
>
> -- daniel
>
>>
>> Mandy
>>
>