[jboss-dev] Abstract classes?

[David M. Lloyd]

On 06/04/2009 11:30 AM, Adrian Brock wrote:
> On Thu, 2009-06-04 at 10:33 -0500, David M. Lloyd wrote:
>>> The same goes for all the other "feeble" topics that have been drowning
>>> the dev-list recently. 
>> That's pretty derisive, and I for one don't appreciate it.
>>
>>> If I see another topic on logging I might even unsubscribe from the
>>> list. ;-)
>> That reminds me... ;-)
> 
> We'll we had that argument a long time ago and you ignored my advice.

I think you'll find that you are incorrect, if you're referring to this 
thread: 
http://lists.jboss.org/pipermail/jboss-development/2007-December/011166.html

I argued the following:

1) All popular logging APIs should be supported
2) Everyone should switch to JUL
3) App developers should be able to use whatever API they like without 
blowing things up or getting other unexpected results.

I still stick by my #1 and #3, though I conceded #2 a rather long time ago 
(there are a lot of features present in other logging APIs that are missing 
in the j.u.l.Logger API, and my current opinion based on user feedback is 
that slf4j is least likely to introduce dependencies that aren't already 
present in a given project).

As I recall, your response was:

1) Everyone should use jboss logger
2) We will always have to deal with many logging frameworks
3) JUL is broken and can never be used safely, period

I still disagree with #1, but that's one of those things that nobody will 
ever really agree on.  I agree totally with #2, and in fact that ties 
directly with my #1 and #3.  I have since refuted your #3 by producing a 
JDK logmanager (with javadocs btw) that isn't broken, which allows us in 
5.1.x to trap JUL messages and forward them into our log without risking 
performance/deadlock/memory leak/etc issues.

I have since come to the conclusion that there are two separate arguments: 
what logging APIs to support, and what logging backend to use.  The answer 
to the first is "all of them", and the answer to the second is "it doesn't 
matter, so long as it works".  Thus it doesn't matter what logging APIs 
each project chooses to use because all the major APIs should be supported. 
  So when working on the new logging POJO service, I've stuck to that 
philosophy.  Since that time the vast majority of my posts on the topic of 
logging have gone unanswered.  Do you have anything to add?  If so, how 
about posting constructive criticism here:

http://www.jboss.org/community/wiki/LoggingPOJOServiceRequirements

So my question for you in this thread is, are we still in disagreement 
about something that is relevant here?

- DML