[wildfly-dev] Version notifications at library init

[James Perkins]

We could just ensure that "version" is in the category and use a filter.
That requires some buy-in from external dependencies though. I guess really
any solution requires some kind of buy-in.

On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 2:15 PM, David M. Lloyd <david.lloyd at redhat.com>
wrote:

> Since 2007 at least [1].  I believe it came from an earlier set of
> standards which predate my employment with JBoss but that was so long
> ago that I don't recall for certain.
>
> That said, I'm open to revising how we do this as well.  The log
> segregation tools we theoretically have at our disposal are:
>
> • Level
> • Category
> • NDC
> • MDC
> • Source class/method/file/line
> • Arbitrary filter
>
> However, I don't really have any bright ideas as to a *good* way to do
> this (which is simple and hard for users to break, but also doesn't
> screw up performance).
>
> [1] https://developer.jboss.org/wiki/LoggingStandards/version/2
>
> On 03/28/2017 03:54 PM, Brian Stansberry wrote:
> > We already have codes for a lot of these messsages so there’s not much
> added noise.
> >
> > FWIW I hope we don’t have a standard to log every lib version. We
> already are way too noisy at boot, IMHO. If someone has a nifty way to
> write these to the server log but not the console that would be lovely. And
> I’d like a pony too. ;)
> >
> >> On Mar 28, 2017, at 2:10 PM, David M. Lloyd <david.lloyd at redhat.com>
> wrote:
> >>
> >> This is relatively minor but I've been sitting on it for a pretty long
> >> time so I wanted to see if anyone had a strong opinion about it.
> >>
> >> In the past few years, we've internationalized many of our projects, and
> >> in the process assigned unique, searchable codes to exceptions and
> >> INFO-and-higher log messages.  In the meantime, as part of our existing
> >> logging standards, we always log a version string for each library as it
> >> is activated (this lets us quickly identify which versions of which
> >> libraries are active, in order to aid in troubleshooting, etc.).
> >>
> >> At present it is not part of our logging standard to assign a searchable
> >> code to the version message.  It has been suggested that we begin doing
> >> so.  If we did, I would recommend that the code be '0' for such messages
> >> as most if not all of our projects use '1' as the lowest message ID.
> >>
> >> The advantage of doing so is that it allows a given library's version
> >> message to be quickly found in a log file, even if the language of the
> >> log file is not known to the searcher.  The disadvantage is that it
> >> brings in additional noise to the log which makes it harder to read.
> >>
> >> Does anyone have any strong feelings one way or the other, or better
> >> yet, some pros or cons to add?
> >>
> >> --
> >> - DML
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> wildfly-dev mailing list
> >> wildfly-dev at lists.jboss.org
> >> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/wildfly-dev
> >
>
> --
> - DML
> _______________________________________________
> wildfly-dev mailing list
> wildfly-dev at lists.jboss.org
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/wildfly-dev
>



-- 
James R. Perkins
JBoss by Red Hat
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.jboss.org/pipermail/wildfly-dev/attachments/20170328/db51e059/attachment.html