Cannot suppress GuiceFilter warning

[GoogleCodeExporter]

I'm attempting to run concurrent unit tests (each one with their own Injector, 
web server, etc) so I'd like to suppress the warning message emitted by 
GuiceFilter.setPipeline. setPipeline() invokes:
       Logger.getLogger(GuiceFilter.class.getName()).warning(MULTIPLE_INJECTORS_WARNING);

java.util.logging.Logger.getLogger() warns "The LogManager may only retain a 
weak reference to the newly created Logger. It is important to understand that 
a previously created Logger with the given name may be garbage collected at any 
time if there is no strong reference to the Logger."

Because GuiceFilter does not retain a strong reference to the Logger, it gets 
garbage-collected between the time I configure it and the time that 
GuiceFilter.setPipeline() gets invoked.

Normally the class containing the log is supposed to retain a static reference 
to the Logger, precisely for this reason. I am configuring the logging level 
from an xml configuration file. If I am forced to store a strong reference to 
the Logger on behalf of GuiceFilter it's not entirely clear where I should 
store such a reference there are multiple unit test files and order of 
execution is not guaranteed.

Please consider adding a static reference to the Logger.

Also, it's not entirely clear the impact of running concurrent unit tests with 
GuiceFilter. I see multiple locations GuiceFilter.pipeline is read and written 
to. Are you *sure* this won't result in threading problems when running 
multiple servers handling concurrent tests?

Original issue reported on code.google.com by cow...@bbs.darktech.org on 17 Jun 2011 at 2:14

[GoogleCodeExporter]

So basically:

1) you want a static reference to the GuiceFilter logger
2) you are asking about concurrency issues without providing any details

Please confirm.

Fred

Original comment by ffa...@gmail.com on 17 Jun 2011 at 8:27

[GoogleCodeExporter]

1. Yes.
2. I'm asking what's the impact of this scenario:

Thread1: invoke Guice.createInjector() which invokes GuiceFilter.setPipeline() 
indirectly.
Thread1: GuiceFilter.init() invoked, GuiceFilter.pipeline gets read

Thread2: invoke Guice.createInjector() which invokes GuiceFilter.setPipeline() 
indirectly.
Thread2: GuiceFilter.init() invoked, GuiceFilter.pipeline gets read

Thread1: invoke doFilter(), which reads Guice.pipeline set by Thread2
Thread1: invoke destroy(), which sets GuiceFilter.pipeline to 
DefaultFilterPipeline()

Thread2: invoke doFilter(), which reads Guice.pipeline set by Thread1
etc...

Is there a problem with the fact that Threads are using pipelines set by other 
threads?

Original comment by cow...@bbs.darktech.org on 17 Jun 2011 at 12:21

[GoogleCodeExporter]

Thanks for the details.

The filter pipeline was retrofitted in 
http://code.google.com/p/google-guice/source/detail?spec=svn1150&r=1150 to 
accommodate the multiple injector case.  This means your concurrent tests 
should run just fine.

As far as where to put the logger handle, I don't see an issue with adding a 
static handle in GuiceFilter.  You could probably do this in your suite as 
well, but I agree that it's probably best done in the more conventional 
location.

Original comment by ffa...@gmail.com on 17 Jun 2011 at 6:15

[GoogleCodeExporter]

Okay, so let's just add the static Logger and I'll open a separate issue if I 
run into any race conditions.

Original comment by cow...@bbs.darktech.org on 17 Jun 2011 at 6:38

[GoogleCodeExporter]

fixed the remaining issue in r1587.

Original comment by sberlin on 16 Oct 2011 at 3:56

• Changed state: Fixed