Need comments on JEP-158: Unified JVM Logging

[Fredrik Arvidsson]

Hi Richard

I will add more text in the JEP describing the intent of the 
hierarchical logger design. As you said, it is not that clear in the 
current one. Thanks.

Regarding out off band discussions. I have noted that and I will try to 
keep myself updated to that. It is not optimal to have discussions in 
many places and I will not be able to screen all the internets for this 
information. But this is what we have to deal with I am afraid.

Cheers
/Fredrik

On 2014-05-18 11:47, Richard Warburton wrote:
> Hi Fredrik,
>
>     In the JEP I tried to explain the concept of 'sub' loggers but I
>     did not put in anything about the intent of having them. I think
>     that your requirement easily could be solved using sub loggers, or
>     sub components if you like that wording better.
>
>     Loggers are ordered in an hierarchical tree where 'gc' might be
>     the root for all logging in the gc 'area'. The 'details', 'cause'
>     and 'safepoint' content types could be translated in to sub
>     loggers to the 'gc' logger. By setting log level for the separate
>     sub loggers to enable logging I cant see that you would not be
>     able to get the filtering you want. By using log levels wisely you
>     will be able to get even more control over what gets output in the
>     logs. The above was a much simplified example, in reality you
>     would probably have a more elaborate tree of gc loggers. There is
>     nothing in the logger three hierarchy approach that implies that
>     they should be big blocks of stuff.
>
>     Logging topics, tags, or markers were something we considered at
>     the beginning of the design phase but we came to the conclusion
>     that we probably could solve the requirements by using sub loggers
>     instead.
>
>     Please tell me if you don't think this approach would work, and in
>     that case why.
>
>
> Thanks for clarifying this point. I think this explanation addresses 
> how that particular use case is met. I suspect that it might be worth 
> adding a bit more explanation around this topic to the JEP itself, 
> because I don't think I'm the only person with this concern.
>
> Also a heads up that there's discussion happening related to this 
> topic off-list at: 
> https://groups.google.com/a/jclarity.com/forum/#!topic/friends/NA0EyOJk6bs 
> <https://groups.google.com/a/jclarity.com/forum/#%21topic/friends/NA0EyOJk6bs>
>
> regards,
>
>   Richard Warburton
>
> http://insightfullogic.com
> @RichardWarburto <http://twitter.com/richardwarburto>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/serviceability-dev/attachments/20140518/d65a859d/attachment-0001.html>