persistence@glassfish.java.net

Re: CONFIG log messages?

From: Tom Ware <tom.ware_at_oracle.com>
Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2006 10:16:39 -0400

Hi Marina,

  Comments inline.

Marina Vatkina wrote:

>Hi Tom,
>
>If we change defaults to INFO (which is also the GF default), the following
>messages will not be logged by default:
>
>I. Via SessionLog.CONFIG
>
>1. EntityManagerFactoryProvider
> a) translateOldProperties
>=> this is the only one that you suggested to move to the INFO level
>
>
I think changing this one to INTO is a good idea.

>2. DatabaseAccessor
> a) buildConnectLog -> displays connection info
>=> this might be important to display always, i.e. move it to the INFO level.
>
> b) connect -> "connecting" message
> c) disconnect -> "disconnect" message
> d) reestablishConnection -> "reconnecting" message
>
>
DatabaseAccessor has always logged the way it currently does. I believe
the default logging behavior should be the same with JPA as with other
TopLink applications. Since we are changing the JPA default to the same
as the default in the rest of TopLink, I believe this should remain the
way it is.

>3. MetadataProcessor
> a) handleORMException
> b) buildEntityList -> "exception_loading_entity_class"
>=> should this be an exception or at least a warning instead?
>
>
I think it would make sense to make this a warning.

Aside from the changes above, I think we are ok with keeping the logging
levels the same as they currently are. The amount that is logged by
default should be limited to what is absolutely necessary.

-Tom

>4. EntityManagerSetupImpl
> a) buildEntityList -> same as 3b) above (Sahoo, why do we have 2 methods doing
>the same thing?)
>
>II. Via logConfigMessage() call
>
>5. MetadataAccessor
> a) getName -> logging the defaulting field
>
>6. ClassAccessor
> a) processEntity -> logging alias name
>
>7. RelationshipAccessor
> a) setReferenceClass -> logging the defaulting column name
>
>8. MetadataHelper
> a) isOneToMany -> defaulting message
> b) isOneToOne -> defaulting message
>
>Do you agree with the proposed changes?
>
>thanks,
>-marina
>
>