You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@qpid.apache.org by Phil Harvey <ph...@philharveyonline.com> on 2013/06/05 16:27:32 UTC
Qpid-specific logging facade(s) for Proton etc
An interesting discussion about logging has emerged from the mailing thread
"AMQP 1.0 JMS client - supplementary coding standards". I'm starting a new
thread for this specific topic and am including the proton list.
To recap, Rob, Rajith, Rafi and Gordon have expressed a desire for Proton
and the new JMS client to use a custom logging facade, rather than directly
calling log4j, slf4j etc. The Proton logging facade would work
consistently across proton-c and proton-j.
I think the case for adopting this approach is overwhelming, but am
interested in views on the best implementation.
*=== Proton ===*
*
*
I added a diagram to the wiki illustrating how this might work for
proton-j. It's not finished, but I thought it useful to share it early to
stimulate discussion. Hopefully the implied proton-c equivalent is fairly
obvious.
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/qpid/Proton+Logging
I'm not sure what would go into ProtonOperationalLogger at the moment
(Rob/Rafi may know), but want to leave the door open to separating
Proton-specific methods from general purpose log(Level, String) kind of
stuff. It does at least give us a place to define the behaviour of the
"public logging API" that Rob referred to, and which would behave the same
as its proton-c counterpart.
To me, the Logger interface in the diagram looks very similar to the Qpid
Java Broker's RootMessageLogger. Proton *may* use it directly for debug
logging.
*=== JMS Client ===*
*
*
Turning to the JMS client, my initial preference would be to create
interfaces JmsOperationalLogger and JmsLogger corresponding to the Proton
ones. The JMS Client would pass to Proton a ProtonLogger implementation
that simply wraps its JmsLogger.
Alternatively we could create a Logger interface in a central sub-project
and use it in both Proton and the JMS Client, but I suspect that will
involve more re-jigging of our project structure than we currently have
appetite for.
Comments/criticisms etc welcomed. I'm especially interested in whether
there are proton-c-specific factors that would significantly affect our
implementation.
Phil
Re: Qpid-specific logging facade(s) for Proton etc
Posted by Phil Harvey <ph...@philharveyonline.com>.
The build should be fixed now.
I had added an SLF4J-dependent class to proton-api, but not updated the
Java CMake build. Sorry about that. The SLF4J class is intended to be a
compile-time dependency of Proton but not a runtime dependency.
The offending class has been removed and will be reinstated once I've
properly incorporated it into the CMake build.
On 9 July 2013 15:43, Rafael Schloming <rh...@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
> I'm seeing this same problem also.
>
> --Rafael
>
>
> On Tue, Jul 9, 2013 at 10:36 AM, Ted Ross <tr...@redhat.com> wrote:
>
> > Phil,
> >
> > Since this commit, I can't build proton. I get the following:
> >
> > /.../proton/proton-j/proton-**api/src/main/java/org/apache/**
> > qpid/proton/logging/**SLF4JCategoryLogger.java:21: error: package
> > org.slf4j does not exist
> > import org.slf4j.Logger;
> >
> > I checked and slf4j is installed on my system (Fedora 17). Is there
> > something I'm missing?
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > -Ted
> >
> >
> > On 07/09/2013 10:31 AM, Phil Harvey wrote:
> >
> >> I have just committed the first revision [1] of the Proton logging Java
> >> classes under PROTON-343. Among the tasks remaining, the bulk of the
> work
> >> will be in proton-c and proton-jni:
> >>
> >> 1. Defining and implementing proton-c logging functions in line with the
> >> new Java API.****
> >>
> >> 2. Implementing proton-jni’s logging methods to allow it to pass a Java
> >> logger callback to proton-c.****
> >>
> >> ** **
> >>
> >> Does anyone have a view on how the proton-c functions should look?
> >>
> >> Any volunteers for implementing them?
> >>
> >> ** **
> >>
> >> The other outstanding tasks are:****
> >>
> >> - Define the full set of logging functions in EngineLogger,
> >> MessengerLogger
> >> et al.****
> >>
> >> - Modify existing Proton classes to actually use the new logging
> >> classes.***
> >> *
> >>
> >> ** **
> >>
> >> Phil****
> >>
> >> ** **
> >>
> >> [1] https://svn.apache.org/**r1501276 <https://svn.apache.org/r1501276>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On 25 June 2013 13:25, Rob Godfrey <ro...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> So, my main comment would be that I think the Factories should not be
> >>> depending on the MessageLoggerSpi as you've defined it, but instead
> >>> purely
> >>> on EngineLogger. The MessageLogger stuff is a convenience but I don't
> >>> think it should be mandatory to use it.
> >>>
> >>> My other comment would be that I don't think ProtonCategory should be
> >>> defining the "qualified name" I think that would the specific to the
> >>> implementation of the logging.
> >>>
> >>> -- Rob
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On 25 June 2013 13:28, Phil Harvey <ph...@philharveyonline.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> I've created a skeleton Java implementation of the Proton logging
> design
> >>>> and attached it as a patch to
> >>>> https://issues.apache.org/**jira/browse/PROTON-343<
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/PROTON-343>
> >>>> .
> >>>>
> >>>> I think the next steps are:
> >>>> - Gather comments from folks about the design.
> >>>> - Sketch out the corresponding proton-c and proton-jni code. I'd
> >>>> appreciate assistance from someone with more proton-c familiarity for
> >>>>
> >>> this.
> >>>
> >>>> Please let me know your thoughts.
> >>>>
> >>>> Thanks,
> >>>> Phil
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> On 5 June 2013 15:27, Phil Harvey <ph...@philharveyonline.com> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> An interesting discussion about logging has emerged from the mailing
> >>>>> thread "AMQP 1.0 JMS client - supplementary coding standards". I'm
> >>>>> starting a new thread for this specific topic and am including the
> >>>>>
> >>>> proton
> >>>
> >>>> list.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> To recap, Rob, Rajith, Rafi and Gordon have expressed a desire for
> >>>>>
> >>>> Proton
> >>>
> >>>> and the new JMS client to use a custom logging facade, rather than
> >>>>>
> >>>> directly
> >>>>
> >>>>> calling log4j, slf4j etc. The Proton logging facade would work
> >>>>> consistently across proton-c and proton-j.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I think the case for adopting this approach is overwhelming, but am
> >>>>> interested in views on the best implementation.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> *=== Proton ===*
> >>>>> *
> >>>>> *
> >>>>> I added a diagram to the wiki illustrating how this might work for
> >>>>> proton-j. It's not finished, but I thought it useful to share it
> early
> >>>>>
> >>>> to
> >>>>
> >>>>> stimulate discussion. Hopefully the implied proton-c equivalent is
> >>>>>
> >>>> fairly
> >>>>
> >>>>> obvious.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> https://cwiki.apache.org/**confluence/display/qpid/**Proton+Logging<
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/qpid/Proton+Logging>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I'm not sure what would go into ProtonOperationalLogger at the moment
> >>>>> (Rob/Rafi may know), but want to leave the door open to separating
> >>>>> Proton-specific methods from general purpose log(Level, String) kind
> of
> >>>>> stuff. It does at least give us a place to define the behaviour of
> the
> >>>>> "public logging API" that Rob referred to, and which would behave the
> >>>>>
> >>>> same
> >>>>
> >>>>> as its proton-c counterpart.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> To me, the Logger interface in the diagram looks very similar to the
> >>>>>
> >>>> Qpid
> >>>
> >>>> Java Broker's RootMessageLogger. Proton *may* use it directly for
> >>>>>
> >>>> debug
> >>>
> >>>> logging.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> *=== JMS Client ===*
> >>>>> *
> >>>>> *
> >>>>> Turning to the JMS client, my initial preference would be to create
> >>>>> interfaces JmsOperationalLogger and JmsLogger corresponding to the
> >>>>>
> >>>> Proton
> >>>
> >>>> ones. The JMS Client would pass to Proton a ProtonLogger
> >>>>>
> >>>> implementation
> >>>
> >>>> that simply wraps its JmsLogger.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Alternatively we could create a Logger interface in a central
> >>>>>
> >>>> sub-project
> >>>
> >>>> and use it in both Proton and the JMS Client, but I suspect that will
> >>>>> involve more re-jigging of our project structure than we currently
> have
> >>>>> appetite for.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Comments/criticisms etc welcomed. I'm especially interested in
> whether
> >>>>> there are proton-c-specific factors that would significantly affect
> our
> >>>>> implementation.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Phil
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >
>
Re: Qpid-specific logging facade(s) for Proton etc
Posted by Rafael Schloming <rh...@alum.mit.edu>.
I'm seeing this same problem also.
--Rafael
On Tue, Jul 9, 2013 at 10:36 AM, Ted Ross <tr...@redhat.com> wrote:
> Phil,
>
> Since this commit, I can't build proton. I get the following:
>
> /.../proton/proton-j/proton-**api/src/main/java/org/apache/**
> qpid/proton/logging/**SLF4JCategoryLogger.java:21: error: package
> org.slf4j does not exist
> import org.slf4j.Logger;
>
> I checked and slf4j is installed on my system (Fedora 17). Is there
> something I'm missing?
>
> Thanks,
>
> -Ted
>
>
> On 07/09/2013 10:31 AM, Phil Harvey wrote:
>
>> I have just committed the first revision [1] of the Proton logging Java
>> classes under PROTON-343. Among the tasks remaining, the bulk of the work
>> will be in proton-c and proton-jni:
>>
>> 1. Defining and implementing proton-c logging functions in line with the
>> new Java API.****
>>
>> 2. Implementing proton-jni’s logging methods to allow it to pass a Java
>> logger callback to proton-c.****
>>
>> ** **
>>
>> Does anyone have a view on how the proton-c functions should look?
>>
>> Any volunteers for implementing them?
>>
>> ** **
>>
>> The other outstanding tasks are:****
>>
>> - Define the full set of logging functions in EngineLogger,
>> MessengerLogger
>> et al.****
>>
>> - Modify existing Proton classes to actually use the new logging
>> classes.***
>> *
>>
>> ** **
>>
>> Phil****
>>
>> ** **
>>
>> [1] https://svn.apache.org/**r1501276 <https://svn.apache.org/r1501276>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On 25 June 2013 13:25, Rob Godfrey <ro...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> So, my main comment would be that I think the Factories should not be
>>> depending on the MessageLoggerSpi as you've defined it, but instead
>>> purely
>>> on EngineLogger. The MessageLogger stuff is a convenience but I don't
>>> think it should be mandatory to use it.
>>>
>>> My other comment would be that I don't think ProtonCategory should be
>>> defining the "qualified name" I think that would the specific to the
>>> implementation of the logging.
>>>
>>> -- Rob
>>>
>>>
>>> On 25 June 2013 13:28, Phil Harvey <ph...@philharveyonline.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> I've created a skeleton Java implementation of the Proton logging design
>>>> and attached it as a patch to
>>>> https://issues.apache.org/**jira/browse/PROTON-343<https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/PROTON-343>
>>>> .
>>>>
>>>> I think the next steps are:
>>>> - Gather comments from folks about the design.
>>>> - Sketch out the corresponding proton-c and proton-jni code. I'd
>>>> appreciate assistance from someone with more proton-c familiarity for
>>>>
>>> this.
>>>
>>>> Please let me know your thoughts.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> Phil
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 5 June 2013 15:27, Phil Harvey <ph...@philharveyonline.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> An interesting discussion about logging has emerged from the mailing
>>>>> thread "AMQP 1.0 JMS client - supplementary coding standards". I'm
>>>>> starting a new thread for this specific topic and am including the
>>>>>
>>>> proton
>>>
>>>> list.
>>>>>
>>>>> To recap, Rob, Rajith, Rafi and Gordon have expressed a desire for
>>>>>
>>>> Proton
>>>
>>>> and the new JMS client to use a custom logging facade, rather than
>>>>>
>>>> directly
>>>>
>>>>> calling log4j, slf4j etc. The Proton logging facade would work
>>>>> consistently across proton-c and proton-j.
>>>>>
>>>>> I think the case for adopting this approach is overwhelming, but am
>>>>> interested in views on the best implementation.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> *=== Proton ===*
>>>>> *
>>>>> *
>>>>> I added a diagram to the wiki illustrating how this might work for
>>>>> proton-j. It's not finished, but I thought it useful to share it early
>>>>>
>>>> to
>>>>
>>>>> stimulate discussion. Hopefully the implied proton-c equivalent is
>>>>>
>>>> fairly
>>>>
>>>>> obvious.
>>>>>
>>>>> https://cwiki.apache.org/**confluence/display/qpid/**Proton+Logging<https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/qpid/Proton+Logging>
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm not sure what would go into ProtonOperationalLogger at the moment
>>>>> (Rob/Rafi may know), but want to leave the door open to separating
>>>>> Proton-specific methods from general purpose log(Level, String) kind of
>>>>> stuff. It does at least give us a place to define the behaviour of the
>>>>> "public logging API" that Rob referred to, and which would behave the
>>>>>
>>>> same
>>>>
>>>>> as its proton-c counterpart.
>>>>>
>>>>> To me, the Logger interface in the diagram looks very similar to the
>>>>>
>>>> Qpid
>>>
>>>> Java Broker's RootMessageLogger. Proton *may* use it directly for
>>>>>
>>>> debug
>>>
>>>> logging.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> *=== JMS Client ===*
>>>>> *
>>>>> *
>>>>> Turning to the JMS client, my initial preference would be to create
>>>>> interfaces JmsOperationalLogger and JmsLogger corresponding to the
>>>>>
>>>> Proton
>>>
>>>> ones. The JMS Client would pass to Proton a ProtonLogger
>>>>>
>>>> implementation
>>>
>>>> that simply wraps its JmsLogger.
>>>>>
>>>>> Alternatively we could create a Logger interface in a central
>>>>>
>>>> sub-project
>>>
>>>> and use it in both Proton and the JMS Client, but I suspect that will
>>>>> involve more re-jigging of our project structure than we currently have
>>>>> appetite for.
>>>>>
>>>>> Comments/criticisms etc welcomed. I'm especially interested in whether
>>>>> there are proton-c-specific factors that would significantly affect our
>>>>> implementation.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Phil
>>>>>
>>>>>
>
Re: Qpid-specific logging facade(s) for Proton etc
Posted by Ted Ross <tr...@redhat.com>.
Phil,
Since this commit, I can't build proton. I get the following:
/.../proton/proton-j/proton-api/src/main/java/org/apache/qpid/proton/logging/SLF4JCategoryLogger.java:21:
error: package org.slf4j does not exist
import org.slf4j.Logger;
I checked and slf4j is installed on my system (Fedora 17). Is there
something I'm missing?
Thanks,
-Ted
On 07/09/2013 10:31 AM, Phil Harvey wrote:
> I have just committed the first revision [1] of the Proton logging Java
> classes under PROTON-343. Among the tasks remaining, the bulk of the work
> will be in proton-c and proton-jni:
>
> 1. Defining and implementing proton-c logging functions in line with the
> new Java API.****
>
> 2. Implementing proton-jni’s logging methods to allow it to pass a Java
> logger callback to proton-c.****
>
> ** **
>
> Does anyone have a view on how the proton-c functions should look?
>
> Any volunteers for implementing them?
>
> ** **
>
> The other outstanding tasks are:****
>
> - Define the full set of logging functions in EngineLogger, MessengerLogger
> et al.****
>
> - Modify existing Proton classes to actually use the new logging classes.***
> *
>
> ** **
>
> Phil****
>
> ** **
>
> [1] https://svn.apache.org/r1501276
>
>
>
>
> On 25 June 2013 13:25, Rob Godfrey <ro...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> So, my main comment would be that I think the Factories should not be
>> depending on the MessageLoggerSpi as you've defined it, but instead purely
>> on EngineLogger. The MessageLogger stuff is a convenience but I don't
>> think it should be mandatory to use it.
>>
>> My other comment would be that I don't think ProtonCategory should be
>> defining the "qualified name" I think that would the specific to the
>> implementation of the logging.
>>
>> -- Rob
>>
>>
>> On 25 June 2013 13:28, Phil Harvey <ph...@philharveyonline.com> wrote:
>>
>>> I've created a skeleton Java implementation of the Proton logging design
>>> and attached it as a patch to
>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/PROTON-343.
>>>
>>> I think the next steps are:
>>> - Gather comments from folks about the design.
>>> - Sketch out the corresponding proton-c and proton-jni code. I'd
>>> appreciate assistance from someone with more proton-c familiarity for
>> this.
>>> Please let me know your thoughts.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Phil
>>>
>>>
>>> On 5 June 2013 15:27, Phil Harvey <ph...@philharveyonline.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> An interesting discussion about logging has emerged from the mailing
>>>> thread "AMQP 1.0 JMS client - supplementary coding standards". I'm
>>>> starting a new thread for this specific topic and am including the
>> proton
>>>> list.
>>>>
>>>> To recap, Rob, Rajith, Rafi and Gordon have expressed a desire for
>> Proton
>>>> and the new JMS client to use a custom logging facade, rather than
>>> directly
>>>> calling log4j, slf4j etc. The Proton logging facade would work
>>>> consistently across proton-c and proton-j.
>>>>
>>>> I think the case for adopting this approach is overwhelming, but am
>>>> interested in views on the best implementation.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> *=== Proton ===*
>>>> *
>>>> *
>>>> I added a diagram to the wiki illustrating how this might work for
>>>> proton-j. It's not finished, but I thought it useful to share it early
>>> to
>>>> stimulate discussion. Hopefully the implied proton-c equivalent is
>>> fairly
>>>> obvious.
>>>>
>>>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/qpid/Proton+Logging
>>>>
>>>> I'm not sure what would go into ProtonOperationalLogger at the moment
>>>> (Rob/Rafi may know), but want to leave the door open to separating
>>>> Proton-specific methods from general purpose log(Level, String) kind of
>>>> stuff. It does at least give us a place to define the behaviour of the
>>>> "public logging API" that Rob referred to, and which would behave the
>>> same
>>>> as its proton-c counterpart.
>>>>
>>>> To me, the Logger interface in the diagram looks very similar to the
>> Qpid
>>>> Java Broker's RootMessageLogger. Proton *may* use it directly for
>> debug
>>>> logging.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> *=== JMS Client ===*
>>>> *
>>>> *
>>>> Turning to the JMS client, my initial preference would be to create
>>>> interfaces JmsOperationalLogger and JmsLogger corresponding to the
>> Proton
>>>> ones. The JMS Client would pass to Proton a ProtonLogger
>> implementation
>>>> that simply wraps its JmsLogger.
>>>>
>>>> Alternatively we could create a Logger interface in a central
>> sub-project
>>>> and use it in both Proton and the JMS Client, but I suspect that will
>>>> involve more re-jigging of our project structure than we currently have
>>>> appetite for.
>>>>
>>>> Comments/criticisms etc welcomed. I'm especially interested in whether
>>>> there are proton-c-specific factors that would significantly affect our
>>>> implementation.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Phil
>>>>
Re: Qpid-specific logging facade(s) for Proton etc
Posted by Phil Harvey <ph...@philharveyonline.com>.
I have just committed the first revision [1] of the Proton logging Java
classes under PROTON-343. Among the tasks remaining, the bulk of the work
will be in proton-c and proton-jni:
1. Defining and implementing proton-c logging functions in line with the
new Java API.****
2. Implementing proton-jni’s logging methods to allow it to pass a Java
logger callback to proton-c.****
** **
Does anyone have a view on how the proton-c functions should look?
Any volunteers for implementing them?
** **
The other outstanding tasks are:****
- Define the full set of logging functions in EngineLogger, MessengerLogger
et al.****
- Modify existing Proton classes to actually use the new logging classes.***
*
** **
Phil****
** **
[1] https://svn.apache.org/r1501276
On 25 June 2013 13:25, Rob Godfrey <ro...@gmail.com> wrote:
> So, my main comment would be that I think the Factories should not be
> depending on the MessageLoggerSpi as you've defined it, but instead purely
> on EngineLogger. The MessageLogger stuff is a convenience but I don't
> think it should be mandatory to use it.
>
> My other comment would be that I don't think ProtonCategory should be
> defining the "qualified name" I think that would the specific to the
> implementation of the logging.
>
> -- Rob
>
>
> On 25 June 2013 13:28, Phil Harvey <ph...@philharveyonline.com> wrote:
>
> > I've created a skeleton Java implementation of the Proton logging design
> > and attached it as a patch to
> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/PROTON-343.
> >
> > I think the next steps are:
> > - Gather comments from folks about the design.
> > - Sketch out the corresponding proton-c and proton-jni code. I'd
> > appreciate assistance from someone with more proton-c familiarity for
> this.
> >
> > Please let me know your thoughts.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Phil
> >
> >
> > On 5 June 2013 15:27, Phil Harvey <ph...@philharveyonline.com> wrote:
> >
> > > An interesting discussion about logging has emerged from the mailing
> > > thread "AMQP 1.0 JMS client - supplementary coding standards". I'm
> > > starting a new thread for this specific topic and am including the
> proton
> > > list.
> > >
> > > To recap, Rob, Rajith, Rafi and Gordon have expressed a desire for
> Proton
> > > and the new JMS client to use a custom logging facade, rather than
> > directly
> > > calling log4j, slf4j etc. The Proton logging facade would work
> > > consistently across proton-c and proton-j.
> > >
> > > I think the case for adopting this approach is overwhelming, but am
> > > interested in views on the best implementation.
> > >
> > >
> > > *=== Proton ===*
> > > *
> > > *
> > > I added a diagram to the wiki illustrating how this might work for
> > > proton-j. It's not finished, but I thought it useful to share it early
> > to
> > > stimulate discussion. Hopefully the implied proton-c equivalent is
> > fairly
> > > obvious.
> > >
> > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/qpid/Proton+Logging
> > >
> > > I'm not sure what would go into ProtonOperationalLogger at the moment
> > > (Rob/Rafi may know), but want to leave the door open to separating
> > > Proton-specific methods from general purpose log(Level, String) kind of
> > > stuff. It does at least give us a place to define the behaviour of the
> > > "public logging API" that Rob referred to, and which would behave the
> > same
> > > as its proton-c counterpart.
> > >
> > > To me, the Logger interface in the diagram looks very similar to the
> Qpid
> > > Java Broker's RootMessageLogger. Proton *may* use it directly for
> debug
> > > logging.
> > >
> > >
> > > *=== JMS Client ===*
> > > *
> > > *
> > > Turning to the JMS client, my initial preference would be to create
> > > interfaces JmsOperationalLogger and JmsLogger corresponding to the
> Proton
> > > ones. The JMS Client would pass to Proton a ProtonLogger
> implementation
> > > that simply wraps its JmsLogger.
> > >
> > > Alternatively we could create a Logger interface in a central
> sub-project
> > > and use it in both Proton and the JMS Client, but I suspect that will
> > > involve more re-jigging of our project structure than we currently have
> > > appetite for.
> > >
> > > Comments/criticisms etc welcomed. I'm especially interested in whether
> > > there are proton-c-specific factors that would significantly affect our
> > > implementation.
> > >
> > >
> > > Phil
> > >
> >
>
Re: Qpid-specific logging facade(s) for Proton etc
Posted by Rob Godfrey <ro...@gmail.com>.
So, my main comment would be that I think the Factories should not be
depending on the MessageLoggerSpi as you've defined it, but instead purely
on EngineLogger. The MessageLogger stuff is a convenience but I don't
think it should be mandatory to use it.
My other comment would be that I don't think ProtonCategory should be
defining the "qualified name" I think that would the specific to the
implementation of the logging.
-- Rob
On 25 June 2013 13:28, Phil Harvey <ph...@philharveyonline.com> wrote:
> I've created a skeleton Java implementation of the Proton logging design
> and attached it as a patch to
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/PROTON-343.
>
> I think the next steps are:
> - Gather comments from folks about the design.
> - Sketch out the corresponding proton-c and proton-jni code. I'd
> appreciate assistance from someone with more proton-c familiarity for this.
>
> Please let me know your thoughts.
>
> Thanks,
> Phil
>
>
> On 5 June 2013 15:27, Phil Harvey <ph...@philharveyonline.com> wrote:
>
> > An interesting discussion about logging has emerged from the mailing
> > thread "AMQP 1.0 JMS client - supplementary coding standards". I'm
> > starting a new thread for this specific topic and am including the proton
> > list.
> >
> > To recap, Rob, Rajith, Rafi and Gordon have expressed a desire for Proton
> > and the new JMS client to use a custom logging facade, rather than
> directly
> > calling log4j, slf4j etc. The Proton logging facade would work
> > consistently across proton-c and proton-j.
> >
> > I think the case for adopting this approach is overwhelming, but am
> > interested in views on the best implementation.
> >
> >
> > *=== Proton ===*
> > *
> > *
> > I added a diagram to the wiki illustrating how this might work for
> > proton-j. It's not finished, but I thought it useful to share it early
> to
> > stimulate discussion. Hopefully the implied proton-c equivalent is
> fairly
> > obvious.
> >
> > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/qpid/Proton+Logging
> >
> > I'm not sure what would go into ProtonOperationalLogger at the moment
> > (Rob/Rafi may know), but want to leave the door open to separating
> > Proton-specific methods from general purpose log(Level, String) kind of
> > stuff. It does at least give us a place to define the behaviour of the
> > "public logging API" that Rob referred to, and which would behave the
> same
> > as its proton-c counterpart.
> >
> > To me, the Logger interface in the diagram looks very similar to the Qpid
> > Java Broker's RootMessageLogger. Proton *may* use it directly for debug
> > logging.
> >
> >
> > *=== JMS Client ===*
> > *
> > *
> > Turning to the JMS client, my initial preference would be to create
> > interfaces JmsOperationalLogger and JmsLogger corresponding to the Proton
> > ones. The JMS Client would pass to Proton a ProtonLogger implementation
> > that simply wraps its JmsLogger.
> >
> > Alternatively we could create a Logger interface in a central sub-project
> > and use it in both Proton and the JMS Client, but I suspect that will
> > involve more re-jigging of our project structure than we currently have
> > appetite for.
> >
> > Comments/criticisms etc welcomed. I'm especially interested in whether
> > there are proton-c-specific factors that would significantly affect our
> > implementation.
> >
> >
> > Phil
> >
>
Re: Qpid-specific logging facade(s) for Proton etc
Posted by Phil Harvey <ph...@philharveyonline.com>.
I've created a skeleton Java implementation of the Proton logging design
and attached it as a patch to
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/PROTON-343.
I think the next steps are:
- Gather comments from folks about the design.
- Sketch out the corresponding proton-c and proton-jni code. I'd
appreciate assistance from someone with more proton-c familiarity for this.
Please let me know your thoughts.
Thanks,
Phil
On 5 June 2013 15:27, Phil Harvey <ph...@philharveyonline.com> wrote:
> An interesting discussion about logging has emerged from the mailing
> thread "AMQP 1.0 JMS client - supplementary coding standards". I'm
> starting a new thread for this specific topic and am including the proton
> list.
>
> To recap, Rob, Rajith, Rafi and Gordon have expressed a desire for Proton
> and the new JMS client to use a custom logging facade, rather than directly
> calling log4j, slf4j etc. The Proton logging facade would work
> consistently across proton-c and proton-j.
>
> I think the case for adopting this approach is overwhelming, but am
> interested in views on the best implementation.
>
>
> *=== Proton ===*
> *
> *
> I added a diagram to the wiki illustrating how this might work for
> proton-j. It's not finished, but I thought it useful to share it early to
> stimulate discussion. Hopefully the implied proton-c equivalent is fairly
> obvious.
>
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/qpid/Proton+Logging
>
> I'm not sure what would go into ProtonOperationalLogger at the moment
> (Rob/Rafi may know), but want to leave the door open to separating
> Proton-specific methods from general purpose log(Level, String) kind of
> stuff. It does at least give us a place to define the behaviour of the
> "public logging API" that Rob referred to, and which would behave the same
> as its proton-c counterpart.
>
> To me, the Logger interface in the diagram looks very similar to the Qpid
> Java Broker's RootMessageLogger. Proton *may* use it directly for debug
> logging.
>
>
> *=== JMS Client ===*
> *
> *
> Turning to the JMS client, my initial preference would be to create
> interfaces JmsOperationalLogger and JmsLogger corresponding to the Proton
> ones. The JMS Client would pass to Proton a ProtonLogger implementation
> that simply wraps its JmsLogger.
>
> Alternatively we could create a Logger interface in a central sub-project
> and use it in both Proton and the JMS Client, but I suspect that will
> involve more re-jigging of our project structure than we currently have
> appetite for.
>
> Comments/criticisms etc welcomed. I'm especially interested in whether
> there are proton-c-specific factors that would significantly affect our
> implementation.
>
>
> Phil
>
Re: Qpid-specific logging facade(s) for Proton etc
Posted by Gordon Sim <gs...@redhat.com>.
On 06/05/2013 05:04 PM, Phil Harvey wrote:
> On 5 June 2013 16:54, Gordon Sim <gs...@redhat.com> wrote:
>
>> On 06/05/2013 03:27 PM, Phil Harvey wrote:
>>
>>> To recap, Rob, Rajith, Rafi and Gordon have expressed a desire for Proton
>>> and the new JMS client to use a custom logging facade, rather than
>>> directly
>>> calling log4j, slf4j etc.
>>>
>>
>> Just to clarify, I merely said that having some way to better integrate
>> the proton-c logging with that used by the c++ broker and qpid::messaging
>> client would be hugely useful.
>>
>
> Apologies, I didn't intend to misrepresent you :-)
No apology needed!
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@qpid.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@qpid.apache.org
Re: Qpid-specific logging facade(s) for Proton etc
Posted by Phil Harvey <ph...@philharveyonline.com>.
On 5 June 2013 16:54, Gordon Sim <gs...@redhat.com> wrote:
> On 06/05/2013 03:27 PM, Phil Harvey wrote:
>
>> To recap, Rob, Rajith, Rafi and Gordon have expressed a desire for Proton
>> and the new JMS client to use a custom logging facade, rather than
>> directly
>> calling log4j, slf4j etc.
>>
>
> Just to clarify, I merely said that having some way to better integrate
> the proton-c logging with that used by the c++ broker and qpid::messaging
> client would be hugely useful.
>
Apologies, I didn't intend to misrepresent you :-)
> ------------------------------**------------------------------**---------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@qpid.apache.**org<de...@qpid.apache.org>
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@qpid.apache.org
>
>
Re: Qpid-specific logging facade(s) for Proton etc
Posted by Gordon Sim <gs...@redhat.com>.
On 06/05/2013 03:27 PM, Phil Harvey wrote:
> To recap, Rob, Rajith, Rafi and Gordon have expressed a desire for Proton
> and the new JMS client to use a custom logging facade, rather than directly
> calling log4j, slf4j etc.
Just to clarify, I merely said that having some way to better integrate
the proton-c logging with that used by the c++ broker and
qpid::messaging client would be hugely useful.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@qpid.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@qpid.apache.org