[jboss-dev] My logging ultimatum

[Tim Fox]

Sacha Labourey wrote:
> so, IF (and only IF), it is really possible to write a JUL logger that 
> has NO bug (i.e. exhibit no of the bugs Adrian is referring to - which 
> is something that still needs to be proved), then why don't we:
>  - move to JUL
>  - provide a default JUL logger that implements the actual JBoss logic i.e.
>         if (system property set)
>            use implementation of system property
>         else if (log4j in classpath)
>            use log4j
>         else
>            don't log
> 
> 
> That way, we don't need an additional meta-framework but instead we 
> provide a logger that gives us flexibility. Again, only if this is 
> possible in a bug-free way ("bug-free" is a trademark of "JustDream, Inc.")

+1. Yes exactly. If the JUL delegation is really just a simple 
delegation there should be little scope for bugs, but this of course 
needs to be investigated.

> 
> On 12/12/2007 05:01 PM, Tim Fox wrote:
>>
>>
>> Adrian Brock wrote:
>>> On Wed, 2007-12-12 at 15:38 +0000, Tim Fox wrote:
>>>> +100 to David on this.
>>>>
>>>
>>> It's a good job we do things based on merit rather than votes
>>> at JBoss.
>>>
>>>> The point here is about reducing number of dependencies. Another 
>>>> meta-framework (like jboss common logging) is not a good solution 
>>>> IMHO. This is particular important for OEMs who may want to use our 
>>>> project embedded in their own applications (this is what we intend 
>>>> to do for JBM2)
>>>>
>>>
>>> Irrelevant, they've already got to add jboss-messaging-client.jar
>>>
>>> Reducing dependencies to me is just an excuse for NIH syndrome.
>>
>> Huh? How is using JDK logging NIH syndrome? Seems the complete opposite.
>>
>> Surely writing your own (jboss common logging) is NIH?
>>
>>>
>>>> If JDK logging can allow you to delegate to you log tool of choice 
>>>> by deploy time configuration, and the bugs in JDK logging are only 
>>>> bugs in the JDK logging implementation which you can bypass anyway, 
>>>> then we should all be using JDK logging surely.
>>>>
>>>> I'm certainly going to look at refactoring JBM to use JDK logging.
>>>
>>> And answer all the support cases, forum faqs and bug reports? :-)
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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