You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to commits@river.apache.org by "Mark Brouwer (JIRA)" <ji...@apache.org> on 2007/07/26 08:14:31 UTC
[jira] Created: (RIVER-40) JTSK code should use consistent number
formatting in logging output
JTSK code should use consistent number formatting in logging output
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Key: RIVER-40
URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/RIVER-40
Project: River
Issue Type: Improvement
Components: other
Affects Versions: jtsk_2.1
Reporter: Mark Brouwer
Priority: Minor
The following request has been submitted by Mark Brouwer through the JINI-USERS list:
I would like to file an RFE against the JTSK code in which numbers are being logged. Sometimes log message are assembled through the concatenation operator {{+}} and at other times the facility of {{Logger}} is used that allows for passing in the parameters for the log message.
{code}
Logger.log(Level.INFO, "lookup service at port " + port);
{code}
versus
{code}
Logger.log(Level.INFO, "lookup service at port {0}", new Integer(port));
{code}
The net effect is that the latter results in number formatting being applied to the port number, e.g.
{noformat}
lookup service at port 4160
{noformat}
versus
{noformat}
lookup service at port 4,160
{noformat}
I would like to see the logging of numbers to be consistent and I find the number formatting of ports, transaction IDs, lease durations, etc. ... confusing [*]. Also it makes it very hard to find the relevant log messages in (large) log files when you are looking for a particular transaction of which you can only remember the first 4 digits.
Therefore I suggest to use {{{0,number,#}}} in the messages to the log method, I modified the relevant log messages in our version of Outrigger and Mahalo and people here seem to like it, especially in combination with debuggers that don't apply number formatting for numbers.
[*] I don't know to which extent my request conflicts with [6245112|http://bugs.sun.com/bugdatabase/view_bug.do?bug_id=6245112] but it seems the messages I'm talking about are below the INFO level.
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.
[jira] Updated: (RIVER-40) JTSK code should use consistent number
formatting in logging output
Posted by "Mark Brouwer (JIRA)" <ji...@apache.org>.
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/RIVER-40?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel ]
Mark Brouwer updated RIVER-40:
------------------------------
Description:
The following request has been submitted by Mark Brouwer through the JINI-USERS list:
I would like to file an RFE against the JTSK code in which numbers are being logged. Sometimes log message are assembled through the concatenation operator {{+}} and at other times the facility of {{Logger}} is used that allows for passing in the parameters for the log message.
{code}
Logger.log(Level.INFO, "lookup service at port " + port);
{code}
versus
{code}
Logger.log(Level.INFO, "lookup service at port {0}", new Integer(port));
{code}
The net effect is that the latter results in number formatting being applied to the port number, e.g.
{noformat:nopanel=true}
lookup service at port 4160
{noformat}
versus
{noformat:nopanel=true}
lookup service at port 4,160
{noformat}
I would like to see the logging of numbers to be consistent and I find the number formatting of ports, transaction IDs, lease durations, etc. ... confusing [*]. Also it makes it very hard to find the relevant log messages in (large) log files when you are looking for a particular transaction of which you can only remember the first 4 digits.
Therefore I suggest to use {{{0,number,#}}} in the messages to the log method, I modified the relevant log messages in our version of Outrigger and Mahalo and people here seem to like it, especially in combination with debuggers that don't apply number formatting for numbers.
[*] I don't know to which extent my request conflicts with [6245112|http://bugs.sun.com/bugdatabase/view_bug.do?bug_id=6245112] but it seems the messages I'm talking about are below the INFO level.
was:
The following request has been submitted by Mark Brouwer through the JINI-USERS list:
I would like to file an RFE against the JTSK code in which numbers are being logged. Sometimes log message are assembled through the concatenation operator {{+}} and at other times the facility of {{Logger}} is used that allows for passing in the parameters for the log message.
{code}
Logger.log(Level.INFO, "lookup service at port " + port);
{code}
versus
{code}
Logger.log(Level.INFO, "lookup service at port {0}", new Integer(port));
{code}
The net effect is that the latter results in number formatting being applied to the port number, e.g.
{noformat}
lookup service at port 4160
{noformat}
versus
{noformat}
lookup service at port 4,160
{noformat}
I would like to see the logging of numbers to be consistent and I find the number formatting of ports, transaction IDs, lease durations, etc. ... confusing [*]. Also it makes it very hard to find the relevant log messages in (large) log files when you are looking for a particular transaction of which you can only remember the first 4 digits.
Therefore I suggest to use {{{0,number,#}}} in the messages to the log method, I modified the relevant log messages in our version of Outrigger and Mahalo and people here seem to like it, especially in combination with debuggers that don't apply number formatting for numbers.
[*] I don't know to which extent my request conflicts with [6245112|http://bugs.sun.com/bugdatabase/view_bug.do?bug_id=6245112] but it seems the messages I'm talking about are below the INFO level.
> JTSK code should use consistent number formatting in logging output
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: RIVER-40
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/RIVER-40
> Project: River
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Components: other
> Affects Versions: jtsk_2.1
> Reporter: Mark Brouwer
> Priority: Minor
>
> The following request has been submitted by Mark Brouwer through the JINI-USERS list:
> I would like to file an RFE against the JTSK code in which numbers are being logged. Sometimes log message are assembled through the concatenation operator {{+}} and at other times the facility of {{Logger}} is used that allows for passing in the parameters for the log message.
> {code}
> Logger.log(Level.INFO, "lookup service at port " + port);
> {code}
> versus
> {code}
> Logger.log(Level.INFO, "lookup service at port {0}", new Integer(port));
> {code}
> The net effect is that the latter results in number formatting being applied to the port number, e.g.
> {noformat:nopanel=true}
> lookup service at port 4160
> {noformat}
> versus
> {noformat:nopanel=true}
> lookup service at port 4,160
> {noformat}
> I would like to see the logging of numbers to be consistent and I find the number formatting of ports, transaction IDs, lease durations, etc. ... confusing [*]. Also it makes it very hard to find the relevant log messages in (large) log files when you are looking for a particular transaction of which you can only remember the first 4 digits.
> Therefore I suggest to use {{{0,number,#}}} in the messages to the log method, I modified the relevant log messages in our version of Outrigger and Mahalo and people here seem to like it, especially in combination with debuggers that don't apply number formatting for numbers.
> [*] I don't know to which extent my request conflicts with [6245112|http://bugs.sun.com/bugdatabase/view_bug.do?bug_id=6245112] but it seems the messages I'm talking about are below the INFO level.
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.
[jira] Updated: (RIVER-40) JTSK code should use consistent number
formatting in logging output
Posted by "Mark Brouwer (JIRA)" <ji...@apache.org>.
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/RIVER-40?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel ]
Mark Brouwer updated RIVER-40:
------------------------------
Description:
Bugtraq ID [6337652|http://bugs.sun.com/bugdatabase/view_bug.do?bug_id=6337652]
The following request has been submitted by Mark Brouwer through the JINI-USERS list:
I would like to file an RFE against the JTSK code in which numbers are being logged. Sometimes log message are assembled through the concatenation operator {{+}} and at other times the facility of {{Logger}} is used that allows for passing in the parameters for the log message.
{code}
Logger.log(Level.INFO, "lookup service at port " + port);
{code}
versus
{code}
Logger.log(Level.INFO, "lookup service at port {0}", new Integer(port));
{code}
The net effect is that the latter results in number formatting being applied to the port number, e.g.
{noformat:nopanel=true}
lookup service at port 4160
{noformat}
versus
{noformat:nopanel=true}
lookup service at port 4,160
{noformat}
I would like to see the logging of numbers to be consistent and I find the number formatting of ports, transaction IDs, lease durations, etc. ... confusing [*]. Also it makes it very hard to find the relevant log messages in (large) log files when you are looking for a particular transaction of which you can only remember the first 4 digits.
Therefore I suggest to use {{{0,number,#}}} in the messages to the log method, I modified the relevant log messages in our version of Outrigger and Mahalo and people here seem to like it, especially in combination with debuggers that don't apply number formatting for numbers.
[*] I don't know to which extent my request conflicts with [6245112|http://bugs.sun.com/bugdatabase/view_bug.do?bug_id=6245112] but it seems the messages I'm talking about are below the INFO level.
was:
The following request has been submitted by Mark Brouwer through the JINI-USERS list:
I would like to file an RFE against the JTSK code in which numbers are being logged. Sometimes log message are assembled through the concatenation operator {{+}} and at other times the facility of {{Logger}} is used that allows for passing in the parameters for the log message.
{code}
Logger.log(Level.INFO, "lookup service at port " + port);
{code}
versus
{code}
Logger.log(Level.INFO, "lookup service at port {0}", new Integer(port));
{code}
The net effect is that the latter results in number formatting being applied to the port number, e.g.
{noformat:nopanel=true}
lookup service at port 4160
{noformat}
versus
{noformat:nopanel=true}
lookup service at port 4,160
{noformat}
I would like to see the logging of numbers to be consistent and I find the number formatting of ports, transaction IDs, lease durations, etc. ... confusing [*]. Also it makes it very hard to find the relevant log messages in (large) log files when you are looking for a particular transaction of which you can only remember the first 4 digits.
Therefore I suggest to use {{{0,number,#}}} in the messages to the log method, I modified the relevant log messages in our version of Outrigger and Mahalo and people here seem to like it, especially in combination with debuggers that don't apply number formatting for numbers.
[*] I don't know to which extent my request conflicts with [6245112|http://bugs.sun.com/bugdatabase/view_bug.do?bug_id=6245112] but it seems the messages I'm talking about are below the INFO level.
> JTSK code should use consistent number formatting in logging output
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: RIVER-40
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/RIVER-40
> Project: River
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Components: other
> Affects Versions: jtsk_2.1
> Reporter: Mark Brouwer
> Priority: Minor
>
> Bugtraq ID [6337652|http://bugs.sun.com/bugdatabase/view_bug.do?bug_id=6337652]
> The following request has been submitted by Mark Brouwer through the JINI-USERS list:
> I would like to file an RFE against the JTSK code in which numbers are being logged. Sometimes log message are assembled through the concatenation operator {{+}} and at other times the facility of {{Logger}} is used that allows for passing in the parameters for the log message.
> {code}
> Logger.log(Level.INFO, "lookup service at port " + port);
> {code}
> versus
> {code}
> Logger.log(Level.INFO, "lookup service at port {0}", new Integer(port));
> {code}
> The net effect is that the latter results in number formatting being applied to the port number, e.g.
> {noformat:nopanel=true}
> lookup service at port 4160
> {noformat}
> versus
> {noformat:nopanel=true}
> lookup service at port 4,160
> {noformat}
> I would like to see the logging of numbers to be consistent and I find the number formatting of ports, transaction IDs, lease durations, etc. ... confusing [*]. Also it makes it very hard to find the relevant log messages in (large) log files when you are looking for a particular transaction of which you can only remember the first 4 digits.
> Therefore I suggest to use {{{0,number,#}}} in the messages to the log method, I modified the relevant log messages in our version of Outrigger and Mahalo and people here seem to like it, especially in combination with debuggers that don't apply number formatting for numbers.
> [*] I don't know to which extent my request conflicts with [6245112|http://bugs.sun.com/bugdatabase/view_bug.do?bug_id=6245112] but it seems the messages I'm talking about are below the INFO level.
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.