JEP 158: Unified JVM logging
Kirk Pepperdine
kirk at kodewerk.com
Fri Aug 17 20:32:45 UTC 2012
Hi Staffan,
Thanks for the response.
You call it levels, I call is at hierarchy. I'm happy to change to the work levels.
On 2012-08-17, at 10:20 PM, Staffan Larsen <staffan.larsen at oracle.com> wrote:
>
> On 15 aug 2012, at 16:19, Dmitry Samersoff <Dmitry.Samersoff at oracle.com> wrote:
>
>> On 2012-08-15 12:44, Kirk Pepperdine wrote:
>>
>>> The current system of command-line (experimental) options follow a
>>> format that is quite consistent. The options provide semantic meaning as
>>> to what will be logged. This semantic meaning is lost when we reduce
>>> everything to the level of error, warning, info, debug and trace.
>>
>> I guess Levels are independent to categories. i.e. I think
>>
>> Log:info,gc,younggen should be possible
>
> The suggestion in the JEP is that each category/component has several levels, so in that sense they are not independent. To enable logging you would specify a list of {component, level} tuples, like:
>
> gc:info, younggen:trace
>
> But to make it easier to type in the most common case the 'info' level is considered 'default' if nothing else is specified. So the above would be equivalent to saying just
>
> gc, younggen:trace
Right, and this is at the heart of one of my objections is that the predefined levels used by everyone lack semantic meaning where as being able to define tags or groups of tags would allow one to define levels but not force one to use levels. There certainly is a case for levels and I would not want them precluded but I do not believe it is desirable for all components to hierarchically reduce log messages.
If I had a better idea of the schedule for the JEP I'd have a better understanding of when I might be able to pitch in rather then just play seagull.
Regards,
Kirk
More information about the hotspot-gc-dev
mailing list