Phil Steitz wrote: > On 11/19/07, Noel J. Bergman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> sebb wrote: >> >>> Phil Steitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>>> I have been working on adding logging to pool and dbcp per previous >>>> discussion here. I started with a partially instrumented version >>>> of pool 1.3 that I have been using to investigate bug reports and >>>> test performance. I used jdk logging with the following guidelines >> >>> Might have been better to use one of the logging facades - or can >>> JUL be configured to co-operate with other logging implementations? >> >> ref: http://www.crazysquirrel.com/computing/java/logging.jspx >> http://tomcat.apache.org/tomcat-6.0-doc/logging.html >> > http://tomcat.apache.org/tomcat-6.0-doc/api/org/apache/juli/package-su >> mmary.html >> >> >>>> While running with Config or higher levels, there does not appear >>>> to be any measurable performance impact, the instrumentation >>>> seriously clutters the already complex code. So I guess what I >>>> would like to propose is that we release both fully instrumented >>>> and minimally instrumented jars for these components, with the >>>> minimally instrumented version in trunk and a "-inst" version >>>> built from a copy of the release tag. >> >>> So there are now two versions of code that need to be maintained: >>> - a simpler trunk >>> - more complicated tag version >> >>> Seems to me that this adds a huge load to the release process, >>> unless some way can be found to add the logging automatically. >> >> I also see that as a concern, including for maintanence, unless the >> instrumentation could be automated during the build process. >> >>>> I know this seems like extra work for components that we are >>>> lacking volunteers for, but it could really help in resolving user >>>> issues if instrumented jars were available. >> >> Given that it isn't a performance hit, and given the benefits that >> are claimed, I would sooner we maintain a single branch with >> instrumentation than two branches. >> >> Phil, your thoughts? > > Thanks for the feedback. I agree that maintaining a single branch is > best, but what I am struggling with is how ugly the already complex > code becomes when I add (appropriately flagged) trace-level logging > capabilities, which I have found useful in troubleshooting issues. > > I guess the best approach is to forego trace-level logging and get > some basic instrumentation into trunk. I will start committing this > for pool and dbcp and welcome suggestions for improvement. > > Any other comments on the naming, levels, use of JUL before I start?
Why not using commons-logging? It supports trace level. JUL is really a pain. It is applicable for applications like Tomcat, but not really for components. Everybody that tried to use an own JUL-formatter knows what I mean. Big enterprise companies normally hesitate or simply do not permit to add 3rd party jars to the JVM classpath. - Jörg --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
