commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Christian Grobmeier <grobme...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [logging] Commons Logging 2.0?
Date Mon, 01 Dec 2014 09:28:09 GMT
On Mon, Dec 1, 2014, at 00:50, sebb wrote:
> But it would be interesting to know why the Spring dev thought a new
> version would be useful.

The team seemed to discuss moving to slf4j, but he mentioned they were
happy not doing it since the learned about bc breaks within slf4j
versions. In general he was totally enjoying that CL "just works".

However he appeared to miss some things which make logging-lifes easier,
like String substitution in:

log.debug("Hello {} {}", a.getGivenName(), a.getName());

More specifically he mentioned MessageFormat support:
https://docs.oracle.com/javase/7/docs/api/java/text/MessageFormat.html

This is something all logging frameworks seem to support and which might
be possible to add without breaking things.

Current:

debug(Object message)
debug(Object message, Throwable t)

Addition:
debug(Object o, Object... args) {}
	
That aside, I would do the following:

 - jdk support for at least >7 (varargs need 5, but MessageFormat 7)
 - remove AvalonLogger and LogKitLogger


> 
> > For anything more I would point to log4j 2.
> >
> > Gary
> >
> > <div>-------- Original message --------</div><div>From: Christian
Grobmeier <grobmeier@gmail.com> </div><div>Date:11/30/2014  16:27  (GMT-05:00)
</div><div>To: Commons Developers List <dev@commons.apache.org> </div><div>Cc:
 </div><div>Subject: [logging] Commons Logging 2.0? </div><div>
> > </div>Hi folks,
> >
> > I am perfectly aware that I was saying CL needs to be deprecated only
> > before month.
> > Tomcat uses CL and that was more or less the reason it would stay - so I
> > thought.
> > Recently I talked to a person actively involved in Spring. He explained,
> > Spring would use
> > CL and they are quite happy with it. Reason: it's always the same.
> >
> > He also told me that - rather having a new JSR with new interfaces which
> > would be difficult to get into the JDK - he would love to have some kind
> > of CL 2.0.
> >
> > To be honest, it made me think and reconsider whatever I have thought or
> > said in the past. I know Mark did say similar things, but maybe it is
> > the power of a direct conversation.
> >
> > I am still unsure if a CL 2.0 would be needed or not and thats why I
> > outreach here to ask for your feelings/opinions whatever.
> >
> > We have a Log4j2 which is really good. We have a slf4j which is fine.
> > And we have a CL 1.x which is, well dated.
> >
> > Would it make sense to have a CL 2.0 which is more or less (maybe with
> > small adjustments, despite the major version jump) a drop in
> > replacement? It could just add some methods or things like variable
> > substitutions, and thats it. Nothing big. Modern JVM support, some more
> > methods. The rest all the same, except log4j 2 support (which is also
> > provided by the log4j project).
> >
> > As mentioned I am still undecided. But CL 2.0 could be a minimal
> > interface for consumers looking for stability instead of tons of
> > features. However a bit more "modern taste" doesn't hurt, as long as it
> > doesn't break things (too much).
> >
> > Thoughts?
> >
> > Christian
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
> >
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
> 

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org


Mime
View raw message