[jboss-dev] My logging ultimatum

[Jason T. Greene]

Tim Fox wrote:
> I think what we really need here is to write another "meta" logging 
> framework for our projects to use, and that can just delegate to slf4j, 
> log4j, java.util logging etc ;)

We do, it's jboss-commons-logging. :)

> 
> Seriously though, I echo many of David concerns.
> 
> We are in a similar position as David (and Bela) with MINA - I don't 
> really want to pull in a slf4j dependency. Although I understand Trustin 
> has some difficulty in removing this due to the way Apache democracies 
> work :(
> 
> 
> David M. Lloyd wrote:
>> This is my point - on the one hand you reject the only solution, and on
>> the other, you refuse to use an otherwise good library because of the
>> problem. :-)
>>
>> But my point is exactly this.  JDK logging is two things.  First, it's
>> a logging API - like commons-logging, but *built in*!  Second, it's a
>> (pretty crappy) appender framework.
>>
>> OK, sure, the handlers aren't that great.  But guess what?  The user
>> already has stuff using JDK logging just by virtue of using the JDK!
>> And just about every container supports JDK logging (well, except for
>> ours anyway).
>>
>> Trust me, the user would rather deal with (just) JDK logging than
>> having 4 different logging JARs in their classpath.
>>
>> Has anyone ever explored the possibility of getting the log4j people to
>> supply a JDK LogManager that maps JDK logging to log4j?  That would
>> solve the non-container case.  I may take a day this week to just write
>> one, or rather adapt the one I've already written.
>>
>> - DML
>>
>> On Tue, 11 Dec 2007 18:16:39 +0100
>> Bela Ban <bela at jboss.com> wrote:
>>
>>  
>>> I'd love to switch over to the JDK logging (I could drop the 
>>> commons-logging and log4j JARs), but I'm told it seriously sucks, not 
>>> in terms of the API (which can be wrapped), but in terms of 
>>> configuration from a users point of view. And I'm not talking about 
>>> the appserver which comes with logging enabled, I'm talking about 
>>> libs like JGroups which make the dev who integrates JGroups have the 
>>> pain.
>>>
>>> BTW, JGroups won't use MINA until it drops the dependency on slf4j.
>>>
>>> David M. Lloyd wrote:
>>>    
>>>> Developing Remoting 3 I discovered that, thanks to depending on MINA
>>>> and JBoss Serialization, I now have an indirect dependency on both
>>>> log4j and slf4j. This sucks. I'm tired of dealing with issues with
>>>> logging when this problem should have been solved years ago.
>>>>
>>>> I've asked Clebert to change JBoss Serialization to use JDK logging.
>>>> His (valid) concern is that JBAS 4.2.x doesn't support JDK logging
>>>> (except for the wedge that Stan Silvert wrote for JSF).
>>>>
>>>> My feelings are as follows:
>>>>
>>>> * The JBossAS logging system must be changed such that BY DEFAULT log
>>>> messages are all handled properly (in terms of category and level),
>>>> regardless of the logging framework used (java.util.logging or log4j).
>>>> No, relying on the System.out/System.err capture mechanism is NOT
>>>> sufficient for this task. This means that, as far as I can tell, we
>>>> should always be installing a JUL LogManger on appserver startup.
>>>> Frankly it really baffles and disappoints me that 4.0.x and 4.2.x 
>>>> didn't
>>>> do this out of the box.
>>>>
>>>> * ALL framework devlopers should switch to java.util.logging. This is
>>>> the ONLY way you can have logging without introducing a JAR
>>>> dependency. Yeah the API kind of sucks, but it's easily worked around
>>>> (here's one way: http://tinyurl.com/3848rr - notice the lack of
>>>> external JAR dependencies). It's far better for the framework
>>>> developer to embrace suckage, so that the end-user doesn't have to.
>>>>
>>>> * The end application developer should be able to use whatever
>>>> logging API they like the best without surprises.
>>>>
>>>> A while back Scott indicated that there would be the option of a JDK
>>>> logger in AS 5, and maybe it would even be the default one. The
>>>> discussion thread is at:
>>>>
>>>> http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=3904365
>>>>
>>>> though unfortunately, the whole theme of the discussion is "which
>>>> logging framework to use, log4j or jdk" and the issue was confused by
>>>> the faulty assumption that by using one, we would no longer be able to
>>>> support the other. So I'm actually sort of confused as to the outcome
>>>> of that.
>>>>
>>>> In any case, Remoting 3 will use JDK logging, at least until someone
>>>> stops me. And I will continue my efforts to get JBSER and MINA changed
>>>> over to JDK logging as well.
>>>>
>>>>       
>> _______________________________________________
>> jboss-development mailing list
>> jboss-development at lists.jboss.org
>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/jboss-development
>>   
> 
> _______________________________________________
> jboss-development mailing list
> jboss-development at lists.jboss.org
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/jboss-development


-- 
Jason T. Greene
JBoss, a division of Red Hat