Hi Tom,
Tom Ware wrote On 10/16/06 07:09,:
> Hi Marina,
>
> Lets not add the separate property for now and continue to set both
> loggers at initialization time. I think the issue with the default
> logger being set by each persistence unit is one that will have a fairly
> low impact on users.
RI agree. With the only exception that its name is "...default".
But before I finalize my changes, I have one more question: all the changes
to the logger names are being done in the JavaLog class which means that
they have no affect on SE loggers unless the users specify the new option
added by Wonseok. But you are concerned about the session name. So how does
the user-specified session name come into the picture?
>
> Perhaps we should enter an enhancement that says something like:
> Currently the Default logger is used for some of the initial setup
> messages in JPA. Changing the logging level in JPA affects the logging
> level of the default logger and therefore potentially affects users of
> the default logger outside of the persistence unit. TopLink should be
> enhanced to allow persistence units to log messages before the session
> is available at all the available levels without having the log level
> for the persistence unit affect future users of the default log.
We have an IT that says that AbstractSessionLog is being constantly changed:
https://glassfish.dev.java.net/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=1113. Do you want to
change that one, or file another? Feel free to do either one.
thanks,
-marina
>
> -Tom
>
> Marina Vatkina wrote:
>
>
>>Hi Tom,
>>
>>This is not a problem. Do you want to be able to set the default logger
>>level from a separate PU property (if yes, in all envs or Java SE only)?
>>
>>thanks,
>>-marina
>>
>>Tom Ware wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>Hi Marina,
>>>
>>>How about the following:
>>>
>>>1. Change the namespace for the default logger to
>>>"oracle.toplink.essentials.default".
>>>2. Change the namespace for the session loggers to
>>>"oracle.toplink.essentials.session.<sessionName>
>>>
>>>That way we can avoid a clash between the default logger and the
>>>session loggers.
>>>
>>>What do you think?
>>>-Tom
>>>
>>>Marina Vatkina wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Hi Tom,
>>>>
>>>>What behavior would you like to see (keeping in mind that
>>>>AbstractSessionLog
>>>>doesn't have a name, and is used only for a limited pre-session-creation
>>>>configuration).
>>>>
>>>>BTW, now that we create a session and name it at the time we create
>>>>the loggers,
>>>>can we get rid of the AbstractSessionLog instance altogether?
>>>>
>>>>thanks,
>>>>-marina
>>>>
>>>>Tom Ware wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Hi Marina,
>>>>>
>>>>>The reason I am concerned (and the reason I am slow getting back to
>>>>>you) is that all of the following make it so there is a session name
>>>>>is a "reserved word" since the namespace for a session is
>>>>>oracle.toplink.essentials.<sessionName>
>>>>>
>>>>>- oracle.toplink.essentials.default
>>>>>- oracle.toplink.essentials.default-logger
>>>>>- oracle.toplink.essentials.non-session
>>>>>
>>>>>I am trying to figure out if there is a reasonable way to solve this
>>>>>problem and avoid having a session name that behaves differently (no
>>>>>matter how obscure the name ends up being). In addition, I am hoping
>>>>>to keep the name spaces so they are intuitive.
>>>>>
>>>>>-Tom
>>>>>
>>>>>Marina Vatkina wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Tom,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>One more thought: may be we should assign AbstractSessionLog namespace
>>>>>>called oracle.toplink.essentials.non-session or something to that
>>>>>>extent?
>>>>>>It's not a default logger, and a different name will clarify a lot
>>>>>>of confusion.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>thanks,
>>>>>>-marina
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Marina Vatkina wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Hi Tom,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Tom Ware wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Hi Marina,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Comments inline.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Marina Vatkina wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Hi Tom,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>About the name (your other email) - we can use something else
>>>>>>>>>other than
>>>>>>>>>"default", or we can document that a session named "default" will
>>>>>>>>>have
>>>>>>>>>the same log level as the default logger (whether explicitly
>>>>>>>>>specified
>>>>>>>>>or not).
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>I have a strong preference towards a solution that does not not
>>>>>>>>make any potential session names into "reserved words" and will
>>>>>>>>required some convincing that a solution that makes any session
>>>>>>>>name into a "reserved word" is the only reasonable way forward.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>No problem. Worth discussing ;)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Here are my thoughts about the options:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Tom Ware wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>I am still brainstorming for ideas. So far here's all I have
>>>>>>>>>>come up with.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>1. Do not change the namespace
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>We know it causes all types of problems if PU properties apply to
>>>>>>>>>the AbstractSessionLog.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>That's why I am trying to figure out an alternate way of dealing
>>>>>>>>with the default logger stored on AbstractSessionLog.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>2. Add a property that allows the default TopLink logging level
>>>>>>>>>>to be set. (toplink.logging.level.default or something like that).
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Do you mean for the AbstractSessionLog to ignore the current
>>>>>>>>>toplink.logging.level specified in a PU and use the default unless
>>>>>>>>>explicitly specified by the toplink.logging.level.default?
>>>>>>>>>Can be an option.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Your interpretation of my suggestion is correct. I am open to
>>>>>>>>other suggestions as well.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>3. Document the new property as the only way to change the
>>>>>>>>>>logging level for pre-session-creation configuration (i.e.the
>>>>>>>>>>only way to change the logging level of the default logger on
>>>>>>>>>>AbstractSessionLog). Also, document the fact that setting the
>>>>>>>>>>value of this property in any persistence unit could affect
>>>>>>>>>>other persistence units and will override any parent logging
>>>>>>>>>>setting.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>No, it shouldn't override the parent, i.e.
>>>>>>>>>toplink.logging.level.default
>>>>>>>>>will not affect
>>>>>>>>>toplink.logging.level.<very-long-constructed-session-name>.
>>>>>>>>>This was the reason to add its own name to the default logger.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>First, in case my phrasing was not clear, by "override the parent"
>>>>>>>>I simply mean using that property to specify the logging level for
>>>>>>>>"oracle.toplink.essentials" - not changing the logging level on
>>>>>>>>the parent logger.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>"oracle.toplink.essentials" is the parent logger for all other
>>>>>>>loggers.
>>>>>>>The goal is to never set the level on that particular logger from any
>>>>>>>of the PU properties.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Assuming my initial phrasing was adequately understood, I am not
>>>>>>>>sure I understand what you are saying here. If someone specifies
>>>>>>>>toplink.logging.level.default, they are explicitly setting a
>>>>>>>>logging level. Why shouldn't that set the level for
>>>>>>>>"oracle.toplink.essentials"?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Setting the level for "oracle.toplink.essentials" explicitly breaks GF
>>>>>>>integration, as it will not be possible to reset it to defaults
>>>>>>>dynamically:
>>>>>>>the default value is not set on "oracle.toplink.essentials" - it's
>>>>>>>a property
>>>>>>>that is not present for the defaults, but by Java logging defaults,
>>>>>>>i.e.
>>>>>>>"" logger in our case.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>The one strange thing this setting does is
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>it potentially has side effects for the next user of the default
>>>>>>>>log. This setting is one that is likely to be only used while
>>>>>>>>debugging (and infrequently, even then) due to the fact that there
>>>>>>>>are very few messages at a more granular level that INFO(the
>>>>>>>>default) that are written to the default logger. As a result, I
>>>>>>>>am willing to live with that side effect as long as we adequately
>>>>>>>>document it.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>What if we change the setting to toplink.logging.level.config or
>>>>>>>>toplink.logging.level.default-logger, and ensure it does not have
>>>>>>>>any effect on the session loggers.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Yes, we can have toplink.logging.level.default-logger mapped to the
>>>>>>>"oracle.toplink.essentials.default-logger" namespace, which will
>>>>>>>not affect
>>>>>>>any session loggers, but will use the same global defaults if not
>>>>>>>set explicitly.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>4. Only use the existing property (toplink.logging.level) to set
>>>>>>>>>>the level of the session's log.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>This will require a redeploy to apply a change, and doesn't solve
>>>>>>>>>the
>>>>>>>>>problem of having separate log levels for separate PUs.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>What conditions cause us to need a redeploy for a change?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>If a user once specified a toplink.logging.level in the
>>>>>>>persistence.xml,
>>>>>>>they can't just remove that property to get the defaults. They need to
>>>>>>>redeploy either way if they change persistence.xml, but they'll
>>>>>>>need to
>>>>>>>either reset it to INFO, or restart the server after the redeploy
>>>>>>>to get
>>>>>>>the defaults.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>If toplink.logging.level sets only the level of the sessions log.
>>>>>>>>(i.e. for session "session1", only the logger in namespace
>>>>>>>>"oracle.toplink.essentials.session1" is affected), doesn't this
>>>>>>>>solve the problem of having separate log levels for separate PUs?
>>>>>>>>Please forgive me if I am being missing something obvious.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Yes. It does. I think we now go in circles around the following
>>>>>>>proposal:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>1. Existing toplink.logging.level property to affect only session
>>>>>>>loggers.
>>>>>>>2. Introduce toplink.logging.level.default-logger property that
>>>>>>>will affect
>>>>>>>AbstractSessionLog only and will be global for all PUs in this VM.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>As we didn't discuss the categories behavior so far,
>>>>>>>3. It's not possible to choose for a user a separate log level for
>>>>>>>separate
>>>>>>>category.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Do you agree?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>thanks,
>>>>>>>-marina
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>-Tom
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>I haven't completely thought it out, but figured I pass on the
>>>>>>>>>>idea to start the discussion.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>yes, let's sort it out (and document the result).
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>thanks,
>>>>>>>>>-marina
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>-Tom
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>Tom Ware wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>Hi Marina,
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>Thanks for the lesson:)
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>As far as changing the namespace for the default logger to
>>>>>>>>>>>"oracle.toplink.essentials.default", I have a concern. Isn't
>>>>>>>>>>>this the same namespace as a session called "default"? I
>>>>>>>>>>>believe this could cause problems.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>I still need to do some thinking about the issue of how we deal
>>>>>>>>>>>with the logging level of the default Logger. It seems to me
>>>>>>>>>>>to potentially be an issue regardless of what we do about this
>>>>>>>>>>>bug. I'll let you know what I come up with.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>I think Wonsoek has replied to your question about the default
>>>>>>>>>>>logging levels. Please let me know if you have additional
>>>>>>>>>>>questions.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>-Tom
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>Marina Vatkina wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>Tom, Wonseok,
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>Yes, I should've extracted the relevant portion into
>>>>>>>>>>>>setServerSessionName
>>>>>>>>>>>>(don't know why I missed half of the code :( - sorry about that).
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>Yes, it should be ".default".
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>The categories are appended to each name space, and I'm not
>>>>>>>>>>>>sure the categories
>>>>>>>>>>>>are implemented correctly now in the JavaLog if they are
>>>>>>>>>>>>expected to be
>>>>>>>>>>>>specified by the user. But let's discuss this further, and see
>>>>>>>>>>>>where is the
>>>>>>>>>>>>right solution.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>Here is the problem that I'm trying to solve.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>Java loggers use parent's level if it is not explicitly set,
>>>>>>>>>>>>but use its own
>>>>>>>>>>>>level otherwise. There is no way to unset a level, once it's
>>>>>>>>>>>>set explicitly.
>>>>>>>>>>>>The namespace is registered with the LogMgr in the VM, which
>>>>>>>>>>>>means that as long
>>>>>>>>>>>>as you use the same name, you are getting the same Java logger
>>>>>>>>>>>>instance.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>Now, if a log level is specified in a persistence.xml as a
>>>>>>>>>>>>property, we do set
>>>>>>>>>>>>it currently on the default logger by processing
>>>>>>>>>>>>AbstractSessionLog in
>>>>>>>>>>>>initOrUpdateLogging (which without ".default" equals to the
>>>>>>>>>>>>overall TopLink namespace of "oracle.toplink.essentials") ,
>>>>>>>>>>>>i.e. any other PU after that will
>>>>>>>>>>>>use that level (if it doesn't specify it explicitly), or will
>>>>>>>>>>>>override it again
>>>>>>>>>>>>with its own setting if it is different. Which means that 2
>>>>>>>>>>>>PUs can't have 2
>>>>>>>>>>>>different logging levels.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>Adding ".default" will give AbstractSessionLog it's own
>>>>>>>>>>>>sub-space.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>Setting the ServerSession name much earlier, gives each PU
>>>>>>>>>>>>it's own sub-space.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>Now the subcategories (I had never tested, how would it work
>>>>>>>>>>>>in GF): the
>>>>>>>>>>>>current code constructs the corresponding namespace as:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>sessionNameSpace = DEFAULT_TOPLINK_NAMESPACE + "." + sessionName;
>>>>>>>>>>>>String loggerNameSpace = sessionNameSpace + "." + loggerCategory;
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>It might be better to have it as
>>>>>>>>>>>>DEFAULT_TOPLINK_NAMESPACE + "." + loggerCategory + sessionName;
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>Right?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>I need to think more about changing the session name - we
>>>>>>>>>>>>can't unregister
>>>>>>>>>>>>a logger from a LogMgr, so changing a name will mean creating
>>>>>>>>>>>>new loggers,
>>>>>>>>>>>>right?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>Tom, about the new useParentLevel() - will it be OFF or INFO
>>>>>>>>>>>>by default,
>>>>>>>>>>>>if you don't specify the level in SE? Can you check?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>thanks,
>>>>>>>>>>>>-marina
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>Tom Ware wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>Marina and Wonsoek,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>- Can you explain a bit more why you need to append
>>>>>>>>>>>>>".default" to the default log namespace. How will this work
>>>>>>>>>>>>>in conjuction with the logger categories? How exactly is the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>current namespace causing issues? Will users have to now
>>>>>>>>>>>>>specify ".default" on all their categories? (e.g.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>oracle.toplink.essentials.default.sql) To me, this seems a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>bit less intuitive than being able to set the logging levels
>>>>>>>>>>>>>without the "default".
>>>>>>>>>>>>>- BTW: Assuming we can sort out the "default", I think the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>namespace is currently missing a dot. It looks like it is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>oracle.toplink.essentialsdefault.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>Additional comments inline:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>Wonseok Kim wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Hi Marina,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>comments in line...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>On 10/12/06, *Marina Vatkina* <Marina.Vatkina_at_sun.com
>>>>>>>>>>>>>><mailto:Marina.Vatkina_at_sun.com>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Tom, Wonseok,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Please review the changes.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Major points are described below in the IT note. Other diffs:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>a) renamed initServerSession() to setServerSessionName(),
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>removed
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>from it the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>call to assignCMP3Policy(), and changed the javadoc comments as
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>they didn't
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>reflect the actual things happening in the method anyway;
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>b) changed to call assignCMP3Policy() directly in place of the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>previous
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>initServerSession() call;
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>c) moved the call to setServerSessionName() to the beginning of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>predeploy (see
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>the reason #3 below).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Tom, do you see any problem with registering the session by
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>name
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>so early? I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>couldn't find any code in the EntityManagerSetupImpl that would
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>suggest that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>it can be.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>1. Original initServerSession() does another things. Those
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>calls session.getDescriptors() but this is filled in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>predeploy phase. Therefore I think this should not be called
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>before predeploy finishes.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>How about making a new method "initSessionName()" by
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>extracting only the following code?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> // use default session name if none is provided
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> String name =
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>EntityManagerFactoryProvider.getConfigPropertyAsString(TopLinkProperties.SESSION_NAME,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>m);
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> if(name == null) {
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> if (persistenceUnitInfo.getPersistenceUnitRootUrl()
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>!= null){
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> name =
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>persistenceUnitInfo.getPersistenceUnitRootUrl().toString() +
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>"-" + persistenceUnitInfo.getPersistenceUnitName();
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> } else {
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> name = persistenceUnitInfo.getPersistenceUnitName();
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> session.setName(name);
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>// session.log(SessionLog.FINEST,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>SessionLog.PROPERTIES, "property_value_default", new
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Object[]{TopLinkProperties.SESSION_NAME , name});
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> addSessionToGlobalSessionManager();
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>I think Wonsoek's suggestion is a good one. Let's only move
>>>>>>>>>>>>>the session name initialization code, and not the other
>>>>>>>>>>>>>code. The initServerSession() method does more than
>>>>>>>>>>>>>initialize the name.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>2. (To Tom) Is it safe to call
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>addSessionToGlobalSessionManager() in this early step (with
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>uninitialized session)?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>There is really one issue with this call we should resolve.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>Details in the next item.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>3. What if SESSION_NAME is set by user explicitly? Now
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>user-specified name is set later by updateSessionName()
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>which is called from updateServerSession() in deploy phase.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>I think we need to set this user-specified name in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>"initSessionName()" also. But current code appears to allow
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>changing session name in deploy(). Then should logger should
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>change? I'm confused.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>When we are integrated with the Server, I believe, predeploy
>>>>>>>>>>>>>and deploy will be called with the same properties and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>therefore, the call to updateSessionName() should result in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>the same name as the call to initSessionName().
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>In SE, the predeploy occurs before the call to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>createEntityManagerFactory(name, properties) and the deploy
>>>>>>>>>>>>>occurs after. The properties specified in the argument to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>createEntityManagerFactory() that method need to be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>considered. That is why the call is made in deploy as well.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>As a result of this, there is an issue we have to resolve in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>SE if we are calling addSessionToGlobalSessionManager()
>>>>>>>>>>>>>before the deploy phase.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>- What happens if we initialize with a session name, and the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>call to createEntityManagerFactory() has a different name.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>In this case, we cannot simply change the session name
>>>>>>>>>>>>>because sessions are hashed in SessionManager based on their
>>>>>>>>>>>>>name, so changing the name of the session will result in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>lookup problems.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>4. (To Tom) This is another concern but related to #3. What
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>is the behaviour of session name property? If I specify the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>same session name of two applications or two persistence
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>units, could I share ServerSession? But it doesn't seem to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>do it, because in EntityManagerSetupImpl.predeploy() session
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>is always newly created like below regardless of the session
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>name.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>session = new ServerSession(...);
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>If session name property has no effect in JPA, I think it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>should be removed and then there will be no confusion in #3.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>Session name is used to store the session we use on the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>SessionManager. We expect the session name to be unique. If
>>>>>>>>>>>>>it is not, an exception will be thrown when the session is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>added to the SessionManager. Take a look at the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>addSessionToGlobalSessionManager() method.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>d) I added an api to the SessionLog to allow for #1 below.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Another
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>option would
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>be to check for the log level being OFF, but it's more time
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>consuming to go up
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>the logging chain every time.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Then in Java SE, the default level of JavaLogger becomes
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>INFO while CONFIG is a default for DefaultLogger. It appears
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>to be inconsistent for the default level. I don't know why
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>the default level has been CONFIG for TopLink logger, how
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>about changing it to INFO consistently. Then we don't need
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>to set default level explicitly and to introduce new method
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>"userParentLevel()" to SessionLog interface.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>protected void initOrUpdateLogging(boolean init, Map m,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>SessionLog log) {
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> String logLevelString =
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>PropertiesHandler.getPropertyValueLogDebug
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>(TopLinkProperties.LOGGING_LEVEL, m, session);
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>// Don't need to set default level. It will follow the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>default level policy of the logger. INFO for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>DefaultSessionLog. Parent logger's level(INFO normally) for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>JavaLog.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>/*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> if(logLevelString == null && init) {
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> logLevelString =
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>PropertiesHandler.getDefaultPropertyValueLogDebug(TopLinkProperties.LOGGING_LEVEL,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>session);
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>*/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> if (logLevelString != null) {
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>log.setLevel(AbstractSessionLog.translateStringToLoggingLevel(logLevelString));
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>I just talked to our product manager and we agree that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>changing the JPA default to be the same as the default
>>>>>>>>>>>>>logger. (INFO) Does that remove the need for the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>useParentLevel() method?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>If we make this change, I think we should change the logging
>>>>>>>>>>>>>in translateOldProperties and warnOldProperties to INFO.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>-Tom
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Regards
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>- Wonseok
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Let me know if you see any problems with the proposed
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>changes. I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>tested with
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>2 PUs being deployed, one with the explicit log level, and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>another
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>without it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>I also tested dynamic change of the log levels, and server
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>restart. All seem
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>to work correctly.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>thanks,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>-marina
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>-------- Original Message --------
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Subject: [Issue 1107] Logger defined by a property doesn't
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>work
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2006 01:56:44 +0000
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>From: mvatkina_at_dev.java.net <mailto:mvatkina_at_dev.java.net>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>To: mvatkina_at_dev.java.net <mailto:mvatkina_at_dev.java.net>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>https://glassfish.dev.java.net/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=1107
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>User mvatkina changed the following:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What |Old value |New value
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>================================================================================
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Status|NEW |STARTED
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>------- Additional comments from mvatkina_at_dev.java.net
>>>>>>>>>>>>>><mailto:mvatkina_at_dev.java.net> Thu Oct 12 01:56:44 +0000
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>2006 -------
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>There are apparently several issues to address -
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>1.Do not set log level explicitly if not specified in the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>properties - use the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>parent logger's level (set by the container) instead.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>2. The default logger namespace should be a child of TopLink
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>namespace, e.g.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>"oracle.toplink.essentials.default", otherwise
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>AbstractSessionLog
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>will set the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>explicit level for all TopLink loggers (overriding the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>container
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>settings) in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>the VM on the first PU with the specified log level.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>3. ServerSession name must be set prior to setting the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>logger for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>that session,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>otherwise the logger is registered as the default logger,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>and its
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>level will
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>apply to all PUs in this VM.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>A note: the problem that can't be solved so far is switching
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>between explicitly
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>specified log level for a PU and the defalt app server level
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>this namespace.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>As there is no way to unset log level after it's set, the only
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>work around will
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>be to change the property value or restart the server.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>
>