Hi Jim,
On 9/26/2012 2:19 PM, Jim Gish wrote:
Please review
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~jgish/Bug7159567-set-MemoryHandler-target/
<http://cr.openjdk.java.net/%7Ejgish/Bug7159567-set-MemoryHandler-target/>
Overview - currently you can sub-class java.util.logging.MemoryHandler
and specify its configuration in a logging.properties file via the
classname. For example, if com.foo.MyMemoryHandler extends
MemoryHandler, you can have:
logging.properties:
com.foo.MyMemoryHandler.push=WARNING
com.foo.MyMemoryHandler.level=FINEST
The current implementation does use the<handler-classname>.* properties.
However I couldn't find it from the j.u.logging specification. Did
I miss any javadoc that mentions this?
Per the j.u.l.MemoryHandler specification, it only reads
"java.util.logging.MemoryHandler.*" properties but not the properties
with the subclass name.
*<b>Configuration:</b>
* By default each<tt>MemoryHandler</tt> is initialized using the following
* LogManager configuration properties. If properties are not defined
* (or have invalid values) then the specified default values are used.
* If no default value is defined then a RuntimeException is thrown.
*<ul>
*<li> java.util.logging.MemoryHandler.level
* specifies the level for the<tt>Handler</tt>
* (defaults to<tt>Level.ALL</tt>).
*<li> java.util.logging.MemoryHandler.filter
* specifies the name of a<tt>Filter</tt> class to use
* (defaults to no<tt>Filter</tt>).
*<li> java.util.logging.MemoryHandler.size
* defines the buffer size (defaults to 1000).
*<li> java.util.logging.MemoryHandler.push
* defines the<tt>pushLevel</tt> (defaults to<tt>level.SEVERE</tt>).
*<li> java.util.logging.MemoryHandler.target
* specifies the name of the target<tt>Handler</tt> class.
* (no default).
*</ul>
I looked at the change history and found that the change to read
property using the classname as the prefix (rather than j.u.l.MemoryHandler)
was done in JDK 5 in the fix for 4635817.
This isn't related to the bug you're fixing but I think this
deserves to investigate whether this was an intended spec change
at that time; if so, a spec update to clarify this behavior would
be good.
Thanks
Mandy
