Re: JDBC Logging & log4j - Mailing list pgsql-jdbc

Well FWIW I tend to agree, there is already logging in the backend, so
I'm not sure of the value add for putting logging in the driver.

Just to clarify my reference to the perl modules, it was an example. I
certainly don't intend to add perl modules to the jdbc driver. If
anything, preprocessing could be accomplished using ant as in
Driver.java.in, or by modifying the binary directly.

Both of the above solutions are far from perfect though.

Dave

> -----Original Message-----
> From: pgsql-jdbc-owner@postgresql.org
> [mailto:pgsql-jdbc-owner@postgresql.org] On Behalf Of Peter V Cooper
> Sent: Sunday, March 17, 2002 12:34 PM
> To: Dave@micro-automation.net; pgsql-jdbc@postgresql.org
> Cc: 'Bruce Momjian'
> Subject: Re: [JDBC] JDBC Logging & log4j
>
>
> I would vote no on mandatory driver logging.  Maybe one could
> construct a comment based stub which would have a utility run
> against the code to include the debugging code much like a
> real pre-compiler. This seems problematical and less
> desirable IMHO to just dealing with the logs in the backend
> for support purposes. By default I would hope the driver is
> not burdened extensive and expensive logging code. I guess it
> depends on what a persons need is. I prefer the simplicity we
> have now. Of course I am not a source contributor so I may be
> out of line in my suggestions.
>
> BTW, if driver logging was included I would probably stay on
> the previous release and eventually write a utility to strip
> it out especially if it
> required
> a bunch of  perl modules. I went to java servlets to be rid
> of perl. Perl may be fun to write and I like it personally
> but it is too wierd for many in my organization.
>
> Just one voice.
>
> At 04:15 PM 3/16/2002 -0500, Dave Cramer wrote:
> >A number of people have asked about logging in the driver, and
> >specifically about the use of log4j.
> >
> >There are a number of issues with this.
> >
> >1) It means that we have to have another jar, and likely
> include in the
> >distribution. For folks that don't use java this is a
> burden. Think of
> >it this way, do you want to download a bunch of perl modules
> with the
> >driver so you can use jdbc?
> >
> >2) log4j uses a propery file to load it's configuration and it seems
> >there are some *very* creative ways to load database drivers
> out there
> >which do not load the log4j properties correctly.
> >
> >3) Regardless of how fast log4j is or isn't it is still will
> slow the
> >driver down. And as Hans pointed out java has no preprocessing so we
> >either get logging in there or not.
> >
> >4) log4j does facilitate changing the loglevel at runtime instead of
> >compile time, but we still run into issues where we have to create a
> >string object to log whereas now we don't so code like:
> >
> >         foo(getInfofrombackend())
> >
> >Becomes
> >
> >         String msg = getInfofrombackend();
> >         logger.debug(msg);
> >         foo(msg);
> >
> >So the question is:
> >
> >Do we want to put logging in the driver?
> >Why?
> >How much?
> >At what cost?
> >
> >I have given some thought to question 1) above and we could use a
> >pluggable logger so that log4j could be used if configured or, there
> >would be a default logger. However this would only slow things down
> >even more.
> >
> >Dave
> >
> >
> >---------------------------(end of
> >broadcast)---------------------------
> >TIP 5: Have you checked our extensive FAQ?
> >
> >http://www.postgresql.org/users-lounge/docs/faq.html
>
>
> ---------------------------(end of
> broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an
> appropriate subscribe-nomail command to
> majordomo@postgresql.org so that your message can get through
> to the mailing list cleanly
>
>