You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@tuscany.apache.org by Fuhwei Lwo <fu...@bricemedia.com> on 2006/04/05 16:50:44 UTC
Does SDO 2.0 have logging capability such as JSR47?
I couldn't find anywhere in the SDO 2.0 specification mentioning about the logging capability for error or trace. This is probably SDO implementation details but I think it's important to have some kind of logging capability in SDO 2.0 implementation.
Any comments?
Fuhwei
Re: Does SDO 2.0 have logging capability such as JSR47?
Posted by Jean-Sebastien Delfino <js...@apache.org>.
Jeremy Boynes wrote:
> After the issues last night with Tomcat, I feel like trout-slapping
> anyone who even mentions clogging.
>
> Just needed to get that off my chest - sorry for the noise.
> --
> Jeremy
>
> Jim Marino wrote:
>
>> In the SCA Java runtime, we've implemented a logging approach where a
>> class that needs to perform logging requests a "monitor" that
>> implements a particular interface. This interface has methods for
>> logging that are strongly typed, i.e. "serverStartError(InitException
>> e)". The runtime is responsible for injecting either injecting a
>> concrete monitor instance or factory for creating them into the
>> requesting component. The concrete instance can choose which logging
>> framework to use. The runtime can be reconfigured to use a different
>> logging mechanism by changing the logging factory.
>>
>> This avoids many of the logging problems associated with things such as
>> commons logging (please don't use that one :-) )
>>
>> Jim
>>
>>
As part of the changes to the assembly model that I'm working on, I
would like to trace what's going in the model when it's initializing for
example, but I'm not sure how to do it. How can I get a monitor factory
or monitor instance? and how should I use it? Could somebody in the
group start adding some real usage of the logging framework to the core
runtime classes to show how to use it? Thanks.
>> On Apr 5, 2006, at 7:50 AM, Fuhwei Lwo wrote:
>>
>>
>>> I couldn't find anywhere in the SDO 2.0 specification mentioning
>>> about the logging capability for error or trace. This is probably
>>> SDO implementation details but I think it's important to have some
>>> kind of logging capability in SDO 2.0 implementation.
>>>
>>> Any comments?
>>>
>>> Fuhwei
>>>
>>>
>
>
>
--
Jean-Sebastien
Re: Does SDO 2.0 have logging capability such as JSR47?
Posted by Jeremy Boynes <jb...@apache.org>.
After the issues last night with Tomcat, I feel like trout-slapping
anyone who even mentions clogging.
Just needed to get that off my chest - sorry for the noise.
--
Jeremy
Jim Marino wrote:
> In the SCA Java runtime, we've implemented a logging approach where a
> class that needs to perform logging requests a "monitor" that
> implements a particular interface. This interface has methods for
> logging that are strongly typed, i.e. "serverStartError(InitException
> e)". The runtime is responsible for injecting either injecting a
> concrete monitor instance or factory for creating them into the
> requesting component. The concrete instance can choose which logging
> framework to use. The runtime can be reconfigured to use a different
> logging mechanism by changing the logging factory.
>
> This avoids many of the logging problems associated with things such as
> commons logging (please don't use that one :-) )
>
> Jim
>
>
> On Apr 5, 2006, at 7:50 AM, Fuhwei Lwo wrote:
>
>> I couldn't find anywhere in the SDO 2.0 specification mentioning
>> about the logging capability for error or trace. This is probably
>> SDO implementation details but I think it's important to have some
>> kind of logging capability in SDO 2.0 implementation.
>>
>> Any comments?
>>
>> Fuhwei
>>
>
Re: Does SDO 2.0 have logging capability such as JSR47?
Posted by Jim Marino <ji...@gmail.com>.
In the SCA Java runtime, we've implemented a logging approach where a
class that needs to perform logging requests a "monitor" that
implements a particular interface. This interface has methods for
logging that are strongly typed, i.e. "serverStartError(InitException
e)". The runtime is responsible for injecting either injecting a
concrete monitor instance or factory for creating them into the
requesting component. The concrete instance can choose which logging
framework to use. The runtime can be reconfigured to use a different
logging mechanism by changing the logging factory.
This avoids many of the logging problems associated with things such
as commons logging (please don't use that one :-) )
Jim
On Apr 5, 2006, at 7:50 AM, Fuhwei Lwo wrote:
> I couldn't find anywhere in the SDO 2.0 specification mentioning
> about the logging capability for error or trace. This is probably
> SDO implementation details but I think it's important to have some
> kind of logging capability in SDO 2.0 implementation.
>
> Any comments?
>
> Fuhwei
>
Re: Does SDO 2.0 have logging capability such as JSR47?
Posted by Frank Budinsky <fr...@ca.ibm.com>.
Personally, I don't think SDO should do too much logging. It's a high
performance library for the most part. Maybe logging when/what metadata
gets defined, and things like that, would be useful.
Frank.
Fuhwei Lwo <fu...@bricemedia.com> wrote on 04/05/2006 10:50:44 AM:
> I couldn't find anywhere in the SDO 2.0 specification mentioning
> about the logging capability for error or trace. This is probably
> SDO implementation details but I think it's important to have some
> kind of logging capability in SDO 2.0 implementation.
>
> Any comments?
>
> Fuhwei
>