perfsonar development work

[Guilherme Fernandes <>]

Michael Bischoff wrote:
> Hallo all,
>
>   
Hi,
> I'd hate to burst your(our) bubble but because of the way logging is run as 
> an auxiliary
> component it registers the log statement as coming from the auxiliary 
> component and thus
> you can't filter the results based upon which component(more correct: 
> package) they come
> from.
>
>   
For the debug level there was an "unspoken standard" to include the 
class/component name in the debug message, filtering could be done based 
on this (the actual auxiliary component should just be ignored). For the 
other levels I don't think this is a pertinent issue (the user should 
have to know which component is sending the messages).

Of course this solution is cumbersome, all the developers need to take 
notice and remember to add it to every log.debug call. It would be nicer 
to have it done automatically by the logger component. Is that what you 
mean by "to accommodate filtering"?

Regards,

Guilherme


> This is a serious?, well at least very tedious flaw in the current perfsonar 
> base.
>
> I hope this is addressed in the new perfsonar base prototype.
>
> Hmm I'm writing this message I wondered how http://www.slf4j.org/ fixes this.
>
> I stumbled upon this:
> http://svn.slf4j.org/viewvc/slf4j/trunk/slf4j-log4j12/src/main/java/org/slf4j/impl/Log4jLoggerAdapter.java?view=markup
>
>   /**
>    * Following the pattern discussed in pages 162 through 168 of "The complete
>    * log4j manual".
>    */
>   final static String FQCN = Log4jLoggerAdapter.class.getName();
>
> I fixed the base to accommodate filtering when using log4j.
>
> I'll see if I can upload a new version soon.
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Michael Bischoff
>
>   
> > > Maybe we should implement a "perfsonar base debugging level". It can be
> > > easily done with log4j, and both would actually log as DEBUG level, but we 
> > > can then choose
> > > if we want only the debug info from our implementation, only the one from 
> > > base, or both..
> > >       
> > This seems like a good idea, although in practice I would probably still
> > enable both most of the time (to see if the Authentication and LS 
> > Registration works for
> > example).
> >
> > I can just remove the lines which are of no interest to me using some
> > text editor, this would fix my problem as well :)
> >
> > Cheers,
> >
> >
> > Stijn
> >
> >
> >     
> > > Guilherme
> > >
> > >       
> > > > Cheers,
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Stijn
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >         
> > > > > Roman
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >           
> > > > > > Thanks in advance,
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Stijn
> > > > > >
> > > > > >             
>
>
>