I need to log custom dimensions to Application Insights for which I'm using ILogger.BeginScope(). That works perfectly. That is:
using (logger.BeginScope(new Dictionary<string, object> { "key": "value" }))
{
logger.LogInformation("message");
}
My issue is that I need to call other methods in other classes, and I'm injecting the ILogger into all my classes. So how can I persist the logging scope among all my classes?
I could surely do ILogger.BeginScope() in all my classes, but I would need to pass the custom properties to classes that don't really need that information. Is there a pattern I could use?
If you call BeginScope multiple times in multiple classes within the same execution path, you will get one aggregated scope. There is no need to manually pass the properties. ILogger is injected as a singleton by default (see source code).
See also Since ILogger<T> is a singleton, how different threads can use BeginScope() without affecting others?
A call to BeginScope will put a new item onto that stack, and the adjoining Dispose will pop it off of that stack.
When the logger is invoked via LogInformation or otherwise, the data of the current stack object will be copied to write it to the console or whatever output that logger instance is configured to do.
LoggerExternalScopeProvider.cs#L14
Related
I know how to add a Bean to a CDI container during AfterBeanDiscovery. My problem is that what I really need to do is the equivalent of adding a new producer method with the equivalent of a particularly qualified parameter.
That is, I'd like to somehow programmatically create several of these:
#Produces
#SomeQualifier("x")
private Foo makeFoo(#SomeQualifier("x") final FooMaker fm) {
return fm.makeFoo();
}
...where the domain over which SomeQualifier's value element ranges is known only at AfterBeanDiscovery time. In other words, some other portable extension has installed two FooMaker instances into the container: FooMaker-qualified-by-#SomeQualifier("x") and FooMaker-qualified-by-#SomeQualifier("y"). Now I need to do the equivalent of making two producer methods to "match" them.
Nonbinding is not an option; I want this resolution to take place at container startup, not at injection time.
I am aware of BeanManager's getProducerFactory method, but the dozens if not hundreds of lines of gymnastics I'd have to go through to add the right qualifier annotation on each AnnotatedParameter "reachable" from the AnnotatedMethod I'd have to create by hand (to avoid generics issues) make me think I'm way off the beaten path here.
Update: So in my extension, I have created a private static method that returns a Foo, and has a FooMaker parameter. I've wrapped this in a hand-tooled AnnotatedMethod that reports SomeQualifier("x") etc. in its getAnnotations() method, and also reports SomeQualifier("x") etc. from its AnnotatedParameter's getAnnotations() method. Then I got a ProducerFactory from the BeanManager and feed that into a new Bean that I create, where I use it to implement the create and destroy methods. Everything compiles and so forth just fine.
(However, Weld (in particular) blows up with this usage, which leads me to think that I'm doing Really Bad Things™.)
I has one method to call another #Cacheable method like this:
public ItemDO findMethod2(long itemId) {
this.findMethod1(itemId);
...
}
#Cacheable(value = "Item", key="#itemId", unless="#result == null")
public ItemDO findMethod1(long itemId) {
...
}
The cache works well if I call the findMethod1() directly. However, when I call findMethod2() the the cache on findMethod1() is totally ignored.
Could it be the trick made by JVM which inline the findMethod1() into findMethod2()?
Does anyone come across similar issue?
Thanks!
It's no JVM trick, i.e. findMethod1() is not being inlined inside findMethod2() or anything of that nature.
The problem is your code is bypassing the "Proxy" that Spring is creating around your application class (containing findMethod1()) for the #Cacheable annotation.
Like Spring's Transactional annotations and underlying infrastructure, given an interface, by default Spring will create a JDK Dynamic Proxy (AOP style) to "intercept" the method call and apply the "advice" (as determined by the type of annotation, in this case, caching). However, once the target object is invoked from the interceptor (Proxy) acting on behalf of the target object to apply the advice, the Thread is now executing in the context of the target object so any subsequent method invocations from within the target object are occurring directly on the target object itself.
It looks a little something like this...
caller -> Proxy -> findMethod2() -> findMethod1()
Ideally what you want is this...
caller -> Proxy -> findMethod2() -> Proxy -> findMethod1()
However, the Thread is already executing in the context of the "target" object once inside findMethod2(), so you end up with the first call stack.
The Spring doc explains it better here.
The document goes on to point out solutions to this problem, the most favorable is refactoring your code to ensure the caller is going through the Proxy interceptor for the 2nd method invocation (i.e. findMethod1()).
I also gather another solution to this problem would be to use full-blown AspectJ, using a compiler and byte-code weaver during your application build process to modify the actual target object so that subsequent invocations from within the target object intercept and apply the advice accordingly.
See the Spring docs on the trade-offs between Spring AOP and full AspectJ, as well as how to use full AspectJ in your Spring applications.
Hope this helps.
Cheers!
Other solution I find handy is using #Resource and then invoking the target (method1 in your case) using that resource reference with https://stackoverflow.com/a/48867068/2488286
I've got a legacy logging class. Its got a static Logger reference (named logger) and a bunch of static methods.
Each method takes a String input and writes it to System.out.println and to logger if logger is not null.
Its got a constructor that initializes logger. But this constructor only has package scope and I'm pretty sure its not being called anywhere. Therefore logger is always null and the class essentially only ever executes System.out.println
I want to change this so it can be used in a multi threaded application where each thread writes to its own unique FileAppender.
And that's where I'm stuck.
Basically, what I want to do is have this static class associated with a bunch of different log4j FileAppenders. Each FileAppender can be created by the Thread, and the file name can be derived from unique information known to the Thread.
What I can't figure out how to do is magically use Log4j to communicate that Thread's unique FileAppender to this legacy logging class.
Ideas? Hints? Suggestions?
Mark
It is possible to change the target log file name dynamically using a RoutingAppender and the ThreadContext map.
This can all be done with configuration (no need for custom code where threads create FileAppenders). In the RoutingAppender configuration you can specify a ThreadContext key you want to use to switch the target FileAppender. For example, you can use the string "ROUTINGKEY". Each thread puts a unique value in the ThreadContext map for key "ROUTINGKEY", and this value is used to select the Appender that the log event is routed to. You can even set it up to dynamically create log files that have the ROUTINGKEY value in the file name, so not all target log files need to be known in advance.
The FAQ page has a good example: http://logging.apache.org/log4j/2.x/faq.html#separate_log_files
What I need: a class with two parents, which are ContextBoundObject and another class.
Why: I need to access the ContextBoundOject to log the method calls.
Composition works? As of now, no (types are not recognized, among other things).
Are other ways to do this? Yes, but not so automatable and without third-party components (maybe a T4 could do, but I'm no expert).
A more detailed explanation.
I need to extend System classes (some of which have already MarshalByRefObject (which is the parent of ContextBoundObject) for parent, for example ServiceBase and FileSystemWatcher, and some not, for example Exception and Timer) to access some inner workings of the framework, so I can log method calls (for now; in future it may change).
If I use this way I only have to add a class name to the object I want to log, instead of adding the logging calls to every method, but obviously I can't do this:
public class MyService:ServiceBase,ContextBoundObject,IDisposable{
public MyService(){}
public Dispose(){}
}
so one could try the usual solution, interfaces, but then if I call Run as in:
ServiceBase.Run(new MyService());
using a hypotethical interface IServiceBase it wouldn't work, because the type ServiceBase is not castable to IServiceBase -- it doesn't inherit from any interface. The problem is even worse with exceptions: throw only accepts a type descending from Exception.
The reverse, producing a IContextBoundObject interface, doesn't seem to work either: the logging mechanism doesn't work by methods, so I don't need to implement any, just an attribute and some small internal classes (and inheriting from ContextBoundObject, not even from MarshalByRefObject, which the metadata present as practically the same).
From what I see, extending from ContextBoundObject puts the extended class in a Proxy (probably because in this way the method calls use SyncProcessMessage(IMessage) and so can be intercepted and logged), maybe there's a way to do it without inheritance, or maybe there could be pre or post compiling techniques available for surrounding methods with logging calls (like T4 Text Templates), I don't know.
If someone wants to give this a look, I used a customized version of MSTestExtentions in my program to do the logging (of the method calls).
Any ideas are appreciated. There could be the need for more explanations, just ask.
Logging method calls is usually done using attributes to annotate classes or methods for which you want to have logging enabled. This is called Aspect Oriented Programming.
For this to work, you need a software that understands those attributes and post-processes your assembly by adding the necessary code to the methods / classes that have been annotated.
For C# there exists PostSharp. See here for an introduction.
Experimenting with proxies I found a way that apparently logs explicit calls.
Essentially I create a RealProxy like in example in the msdn, then obtain the TransparentProxy and use that as the normal object.
The logging is done in the Invoke method overridden in the customized RealProxy class.
static void Main(){
...
var ServiceClassProxy=new ServiceRealProxy(typeof(AServiceBaseClass),new object[]{/*args*/});
aServiceInstance=(AServiceBaseClass)ServiceClassProxy.GetTransparentProxy();
ServiceBase.Run(aServiceInstance);
...
}
In the proxy class the Invoke will be done like this:
class ServiceRealProxy:RealProxy{
...
[SecurityPermissionAttribute(SecurityAction.LinkDemand, Flags=SecurityPermissionFlag.Infrastructure)]
public override IMessage Invoke(IMessage myIMessage){
// remember to set the "__Uri" property you get in the constructor
...
/* logging before */
myReturnMessage = ChannelServices.SyncDispatchMessage(myIMessage);
/* logging after */
...
return myReturnMessage;
// it could be useful making a switch for all the derived types from IMessage; I see 18 of them, from
// System.Runtime.Remoting.Messaging.ConstructionCall
// ... to
// System.Runtime.Remoting.Messaging.TransitionCall
}
...
}
I have still to investigate extensively, but the logging happened. This isn't an answer to my original problem because I have still to test this on classes that don't inherit from MarshalByRefObject.
I am very new to concept of IOC and I understand the fact that they help us resolve different classes in different contexts. Your calling class will just interact with Interface and Interface with decide which implementation to give you and it takes care of newing up the object.
Please do correct me if I am understanding is wrong because my question is based on that:
Now, I see this pattern very often in these projects:
private readonly IEmailService emailService;
private readonly ITemplateRenderer templateRenderer;
private readonly IHtmlToTextTransformer htmlToTextTransformer;
public TemplateEmailService(IEmailService emailService,
ITemplateRenderer templateRenderer,
IHtmlToTextTransformer htmlToTextTransformer)
{
this.emailService = emailService;
this.htmlToTextTransformer = htmlToTextTransformer;
this.templateRenderer = templateRenderer;
}
I understand that this helps using all the implementations of these classes without newing them up and also you don't have to decide WHICH implementaion to get, your IOC decides it for you, right?
but when I code like this, I do not even touch any IOC congiguration files. And again I am usin git for 2 days only but from all the tutorials that I have read, I was expecting my self to configure something which says "Resolve IParent to Child" class. But it works without me doing anything like it. Is it because there is only one implementaion of these interfaces? and If I do have more than one implementations then and then only I will have to configure resolved explicitly?
The code sample you have is a case of Constructor Injection.
In a traditional code, you would have a parameterless constructor, and in it you would "new-up" your objects like this:
IEmailService emailService = new EmailService();
So your code is explictly controlling which implementation gets assigned to the interface variable.
In IoC using constructor injection, control is inverted, meaning the container is "driving the bus" and is creating your TemplateEmailService object. When it is about to create it, the container looks at your constructor parameters (IEmailService , ITemplateRenderer , etc.) and feeds those objects to your class for use.
The IoC container can be configured so that interface A gets fulfilled by implementation B (or C) explicitly. Each one has a way to do it. Or it could do it by convention (IFoo fulfilled by Foo), or even attributes in classes, whatever.
So to answer your question-- you can explicitly define which implementations get used to fulfill certain interfaces. Got to read the IoC container docs for how to.
One more thing - "when you code like this", you technically don't have to be using an IoC container. In fact, your class should not have a direct reference to the container - it will maximize the reusability, and also allow easy testing. So you would wire-up interfaces to implementation classes elsewhere.