Eclipse Community Forums
Forum Search:

Search      Help    Register    Login    Home
Home » Eclipse Projects » Web Tools Project (WTP) » New Logging Plugins question
New Logging Plugins question [message #173390] Thu, 06 July 2006 16:13 Go to next message
Michael Giroux is currently offline Michael GirouxFriend
Messages: 287
Registered: July 2009
Senior Member
WTP 1.5 includes plugins for Apache Jakarta Commons Logging and Apache
Jakarta Log4J Logging.

The manifest for these plugins does not specify Eclipse-BuddyPolicy as
described at "Third Party libraries and classloading"
http://127.0.0.1:51980/help/topic/org.eclipse.platform.doc.i sv/reference/misc/buddy_loading.html?resultof=%22%6c%6f%67%3 4%6a%22%20 .

Should these new logging plugins be used by other plugins that wish to
generate logs other than .metadata/.log?

Michael Giroux
Re: New Logging Plugins question [message #173714 is a reply to message #173390] Mon, 10 July 2006 02:29 Go to previous messageGo to next message
David Williams is currently offline David WilliamsFriend
Messages: 700
Registered: July 2009
Senior Member
On Thu, 06 Jul 2006 12:13:30 -0400, Michael Giroux
<michael.giroux@bull.com> wrote:

> Should these new logging plugins be used by other plugins that wish to
> generate logs other than .metadata/.log?

Michael, we didn't really plan on that, so, if you need that, or want to
use them
for that, a feature request and/or contribution would be in order.

We made these "common" plugins because some other third party code
required them, and
we noticed several Callisto projects were doing the same thing, so, we
didn't want to
"ship" multiple copies.

I don't know what "Eclipse-BuddyPolicy" really means. Is it obvious to you
what
value it should have for these bundles? Is it obvious to you what its
benifit is?
Re: New Logging Plugins question [message #173831 is a reply to message #173714] Mon, 10 July 2006 20:14 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Michael Giroux is currently offline Michael GirouxFriend
Messages: 287
Registered: July 2009
Senior Member
"David Williams" <david_williams@us.ibm.com> wrote in message
news:op.tcgbu8jxac05ss@dmw2t23.raleigh.ibm.com...

> We made these "common" plugins because some other third party code
> required them, and
> we noticed several Callisto projects were doing the same thing, so, we
> didn't want to "ship" multiple copies.

OK, thanks.

> I don't know what "Eclipse-BuddyPolicy" really means. Is it obvious to you
> what value it should have for these bundles? Is it obvious to you what
> its benifit is?

I'm not sure either. It seems to allow the classloader to find classes in
other plugins even if the plugins are not referenced in the plugin.xml.

For example, LOG4J properties configure the class name of an appender. Of
course, there is no way at the time LOG4J plugin is built to know the names
of all the plugins that might need to use it, so it would use
Eclipse-BuddyPolicy to specify "registered". There is more on this at
http://www.eclipsezone.com/articles/franey-logging/?source=a rchives.

Michael
Re: New Logging Plugins question [message #174385 is a reply to message #173831] Thu, 13 July 2006 14:11 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Chris Brealey is currently offline Chris BrealeyFriend
Messages: 104
Registered: July 2009
Senior Member
The "buddy policy" is like an inverted plugin dependency. As you wrote, it would
in this case enable the third party plugins' class loaders to load classes from
upstream plugins, and is particularly useful for third-party code that doesn't
know a thing about Eclipse extension points. We should be registering these
third party plugins so that upstream plugins can declare themselves as loadable
from the context of the third party plugins.

The Eclipse Orbit proposal [1] might be the strategic place to do this, but in
the short term, feel free to open a bug against wst.ws [2] for us to add an
"Eclipse-BuddyPolicy: registered" to our third party plugins.

[1] http://www.eclipse.org/proposals/orbit/
[2]
https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/enter_bug.cgi?product=Web%20To ols&component=wst.ws&rep_platform=all&op_sys=all

Thanks - CB.

Michael Giroux wrote:

> "David Williams" <david_williams@us.ibm.com> wrote in message
> news:op.tcgbu8jxac05ss@dmw2t23.raleigh.ibm.com...
>
> > We made these "common" plugins because some other third party code
> > required them, and
> > we noticed several Callisto projects were doing the same thing, so, we
> > didn't want to "ship" multiple copies.
>
> OK, thanks.
>
> > I don't know what "Eclipse-BuddyPolicy" really means. Is it obvious to you
> > what value it should have for these bundles? Is it obvious to you what
> > its benifit is?
>
> I'm not sure either. It seems to allow the classloader to find classes in
> other plugins even if the plugins are not referenced in the plugin.xml.
>
> For example, LOG4J properties configure the class name of an appender. Of
> course, there is no way at the time LOG4J plugin is built to know the names
> of all the plugins that might need to use it, so it would use
> Eclipse-BuddyPolicy to specify "registered". There is more on this at
> http://www.eclipsezone.com/articles/franey-logging/?source=a rchives.
>
> Michael
Re: New Logging Plugins question [message #174400 is a reply to message #174385] Thu, 13 July 2006 15:09 Go to previous message
Michael Giroux is currently offline Michael GirouxFriend
Messages: 287
Registered: July 2009
Senior Member
BUG submitted: https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=150518

"Chris Brealey" <cbrealey@ca.ibm.com> wrote in message
news:44B6548A.B05F2B26@ca.ibm.com...
> The Eclipse Orbit proposal [1] might be the strategic place to do this,
> but in
> the short term, feel free to open a bug against wst.ws [2] for us to add
> an
> "Eclipse-BuddyPolicy: registered" to our third party plugins.
>
> [1] http://www.eclipse.org/proposals/orbit/
> [2]
> https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/enter_bug.cgi?product=Web%20To ols&component=wst.ws&rep_platform=all&op_sys=all
>


Michael Giroux
Previous Topic:WTP XML editor enchancement
Next Topic:Upgrade Experience
Goto Forum:
  


Current Time: Thu Nov 27 08:37:11 GMT 2014

Powered by FUDForum. Page generated in 0.02529 seconds
.:: Contact :: Home ::.

Powered by: FUDforum 3.0.2.
Copyright ©2001-2010 FUDforum Bulletin Board Software