Re: Additional logging questions
Lew <noone@lewscanon.com> wrote in news:jif6ua$3cm$1@news.albasani.net:
Novice wrote:
Arne Vajh??j wrote:
Novice wrote:
Basically, I'm looking for advice on what should always be logged
by every class. I understand now that every class is going to have
its own logger but what should be logged?
You log what reveals to someone reading the log what they want to
know.
Or to put it another way, are there cases where a class won't log
at all?
That depends on the logging level set at runtime, doesn't it?
Right.
If a class is unable to log anything, and that omission deprives
someone of necessary information when they're relying on the log, it's
a mistake.
Another good rule of thumb.
If no one ever needs information from that class out of the log, it
can get away with not logging.
That seems reasonable to me. I was pretty sure you were not going to
advocate logging for the sake of logging and you didn't let me down ;-)
I'm thinking of things like Enums. If I have an enum that lists the
Enums are classes. The same considerations apply as for any other
class.
days of the week, there's not much to go wrong there and I'm not
Is there? I trust you - there's not.
Well, I'm thinking of enums like mine which are akin to edits. For
instance, I use preferences for some of my programs so I created a
PreferenceTrees enum. It has only two values, SYSTEM and USER. My
PreferenceUtils class uses PreferenceTrees as a type in all of its
methods so that someone invoking those methods can ONLY choose
PreferenceTrees.SYSTEM or PreferenceTrees.USER, there's no possibility
that someone is going to misspell "System", which could certainly happen
if the method was expecting a String parameter. The PreferencesTree enum
is trivial and seems unlikely to ever blow up.
But if an enum did more complicated logic, like looking up a day number
and turning it into a day name in a foreign language, then sure, I can
see that something might go awry and justify logging. The logic that
looks up how to say "Monday" in Latvian or Turkish could throw an
exception that should be logged. But my enums are mostly like the
PreferenceTrees enum that I mentioned.
likely to throw exceptions or even have a try/catch block. So
should it just be left so that it isn't logging at all? Or should
there be some standard bare-minimum sort of logging, like an
entering() and existing(), even if nothing else of interest goes
on?
Good questions. Answer wisely, Grasshopper.
What about holder classes? I'm not sure if I'm using the
terminology
You are.
Some people call these data classes too, if I'm not mistaken. I find that
a bit more descriptive but maybe that's just me.
correctly but I'm thinking of a class where you simply store
related bits of data, like a Name class whose constructor insists
on a first name and a last name and then supplies getters and
setters so that another class can ask for just the first name or
just the last name? (Let's pretend that everyone has exactly one
given name and one surname, no exceptions, just to keep this
simple). This could be an awfully barebones class if it only had a
two line constructor and one line getters and setters. Should it
log anyway?
Logging is generally for state changes.
My feeling is that Lew would say NOT to log unless there was a good
reason to log and then cite several good reasons to log. I'm not
sure
Don't take advice from your fantasy of me unless it's good advice.
Don't take advice from the real me unless it's good advice, either.
Absolutely. I'm just trying to think along the same lines as you've
proposed in your posts. I hope I haven't made an unwarranted leap again.
if something like an enum or a holder class (if I've used the term
correctly) would EVER justify logging though.
Sure.
Depends on what's in it, doesn't it?
See my remarks about enums above. The same would apply to a holder class.
If it's a one line getter or setter, there's probably not much to go
wrong and logging is probably inappropriate. But if it's doing something
that could fail, sure, logging would make sense.
I may have completely misread Lew and, if so, I'm sorry. Maybe this
is another premature leap....
Since I never before said what to log or not log that you've seen,
there's been nothing to misread, has there?
Nothing to read, nothing to misread. It's a simple equation.
Understood. I'm just extrapolating the general principle that you've been
stating, which I would paraphrase (roughly) as "don't do anything
slavishly or unnecessarily; do it because it makes sense to do it".
Some of the rest of you may differ dramatically on what should be
logged and when it is okay not to bother. I hope some of you can
share those thoughts with me.
Basically, I'm just about ready to start getting loggers for each
and every class in the project I'm working on now (with plans to do
the same in every project as I create it or return to it). But I
don't want to do too much logging either.....
You should log the information you expect potentially could be
useful when troubleshooting a problem.
This requires that you think like a useful person, not a computer
programmer.
When you're troubleshooting a log, you don't have code in front of
you. You have what the log tells you. It had better God-damned tell
you what you need, because you wouldn't be looking if someone weren't
breathing down your neck. No fancy
"***********************=============" strings. Logs are dense,
multi-mega- or gigabyte beasts of tightly printed strings.
Ops personnel read logs. Ops personnel think programmers are children.
I had an ops mentor who told me, "We love getting the programmers from
[the development location] here for six months. They go back to coding
_changed_!"
Other times they're cursing the programmers who wrote such lame
logging statements.
I have had very little contact with operators in the PC era but I did
have some in my mainframe days. Back then, they didn't have a lot to do
with fixing the problems in the sense of repairing the code. Their job
was basically to figure out which program had bombed and then look that
up in their list so they knew which programmer to call.
Would I be right in assuming that it's pretty much the same situation
today in a massively PC-oriented world? Or have they assumed many new
responsibilities?
It would help a lot to know what they hope to find in a log.
If they still operate like they did in my mainframe days, I expect they
pretty much just want to know which program failed so they can look up
the on-call programmer's name. They won't care about most details,
although they might like to be able to tell the programmer "Program Foo
crashed on an IllegalArgumentException in the constructor for class
FooMainPanel" as opposed to just "Program Foo crashed". They won't care
about stacktraces or such things. But the programmer is going to care a
lot about the stacktraces and other information!
But maybe modern operators do a lot more than that. You seem very
familiar with what they do so this would be a great chance to get your
insight on this.
And as a general rule, then if any doubt then log, because it
is usually better to have too much logging than too little
logging.
I do not see any need for logging in an enum or in a pure
data class (holder class).
Some enums.
Like any other class, it depends on what it does. But generally you
log state changes, i.e., behavioral methods (not usually attributes).
You log anything that is weird. You log errors and warnings.
You pick appropriate logging levels. Here's my log4j idiom:
public void loadResource()
{
logger.debug("");
final BufferedReader reader;
try
{
reader = new BufferedReader(new InputStreamReader(getClass()
.getResourceAsStream("/config/configuration.txt")));
}
catch(IOException exc)
{
String msg = "Cannot open configuration. "+
exc.getLocalizedMessage(); logger.error(msg, exc);
throw new IllegalStateException(msg, exc);
}
assert reader != null;
try
{
// read the Reader, etc.
}
catch(IOException exc)
{
String msg = "Cannot read configuration. "+
exc.getLocalizedMessage(); logger.error(msg, exc);
throw new IllegalStateException(msg, exc);
}
finally
{
try
{
reader.close();
}
catch(IOException exc)
{
String msg = "Cannot close configuration. "
+ exc.getLocalizedMessage();
logger.warn(msg, exc);
}
}
}
Note the multiple uses of 'logger' (an instance member) in that
method.
Interesting. I'm going to need to imitate that...
But please add a toString method in your data class, so
when the class with real login in that uses the data class
can log it and you get something useful in the log about the
data.
Sorry, I'm not following you.
Are you saying that the toString() method needs to be there to turn
things like references into meaningful information? I know that a
reference to something like a JFrame is not going to be very
meaningful and would rather display the name given the JFrame via
setName(). Or are you saying something quite different?
'toString()' should always give a useful way to identify the specific
instance.
That's why I was displaying the name of the table so I'm going to take
that as a "yes" ;-)
It should depend on (and usually only on) the same fields used to
drive 'hashCode()' and 'equals()' and if supported, 'compareTo()'
(which should always be consistent with each other).
I don't touch hashCode(), equals() or compareTo() very often at all. Or
toString() either for that matter. But overriding hashCode() and equals()
solved a big problem for me recently. I was writing a holder class that
contained three fields, a table name, a row number and a column number,
as a key for a hash map and then storing the column width in the value
portion of the map. But when I tried to look up a given combination of
table name, row number and column number I was never finding values that
I knew were there. I googled and found out that I needed to revise
hashCode() and equals() and rougly what those changes needed to be and
then my lookups went fine. But I didn't touch compareTo(). Hmm, maybe I
need to revisit that and make sure it doesn't need some tweaking too....
--
Novice