[
Date Prev][
Date Next][
Thread Prev][
Thread Next][
Date Index][
Thread Index]
[
List Home]
|
Re: [e4-dev] Logger-API useage in Eclipse codebase
|
On 17.08.14 09:17, Marcel Bruch wrote:
> Hi,
>
>> In my opinion the e4-Logger-"API" is completely flawed and we need to
>> first fix this or completely get rid of Logger #
>
> +1 for getting rid of it.
>
>> and go for slf4j.
>
> ±0. I’m undecided yet. While I clearly see the advantage of SLF4J, to be of real value (I think) we'd need a little more than a plain SLF4J logger offers out of the box when logging in Eclipse (UI).
>
> Besides logging to files, System.out etc. it should be possible to log directly to the Eclipse Error Log view as well. This can generally be achieved by a specific Appender. However, to create meaningful log messages in Eclipse, a logging event should contain information about (i) the bundle that logged the messages (String pluginId in IStatus), and (ii) an error code (int code in IStatus).
>
> There is no obvious solution to this. While (i) may be solved by creating a your own LoggerFactory and Logger implementation (which delegates to, say, Logback but adds additional information like the plugin id to a logging event), I see no obvious solution to offer unique error codes for each logging message. Maybe someone else has achieved something similar before? FWIW, I thought about using Markers for error codes, but they are too limited and not very handy to use for that purpose.
>
>
> Regarding Tom’s logger. The key difference to between Tom’s interface and other logger interfaces are additional <loglevel>f() convenience methods; the feature to get a logger injected, could be implemented for any logging framework in E4/Guice (please correct me if I’m wrong here, Tom).
>
Yes it could be implemented for any DI-Framework and Logging-Framework,
we implemented those 2 because we make use of them (Guice in Xtext,
e4-di in the runtime-framework).
With have some additional ideas on Logging & OSGi (including Bundle-Ids,
....) but nothing is planned yet, I'm waiting on the final result of the
discussion on the architecture council list, I really like our way of
allowing log backends and not depending on any external lib at all.
Tom
