You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@bval.apache.org by Matt Benson <gu...@gmail.com> on 2012/03/19 20:17:25 UTC
Logging API
Apparently the selection of slf4j might not suit everyone. While I am
comfortable enough with its API (I prefer slf5j), it does cause us to
impose downstream dependencies on our users that aren't really
necessary. As an implementation of an EE specification it would be
nice of us to impose dependencies, particularly ones that require a
degree of manual intervention like slf4j, on our users only when
absolutely necessary. We have 233 .java files in src/main folders,
only 10 of which contain the String "slf4j" by which I guess that we
are only logging a very small amount of information, in which case we
might consider ourselves better citizens to simply use jul for BVal
regardless of how we may feel about it in the context of implementing
applications.
Thoughts?
Matt
Re: Logging API
Posted by Mohammad Nour El-Din <no...@gmail.com>.
Hi...
Conversion from SLF4J to java.util.logging is committed. Few things to
note:
- For Debug level I used: Finest
- For Trace level I used: Fine
- For Error level I used: Sever
- For parametarized logging messages I used String.format based on [1]
Assigned that task back to Matt Benson for review.
[1] -
http://www.coderanch.com/t/459015/java/java/java-util-logging-MessageFormat-style
On Mon, Mar 19, 2012 at 10:49 PM, Romain Manni-Bucau
<rm...@gmail.com>wrote:
> +1,
>
> we (OpenEJB ;)) are waiting bval and owb and clearly next release can be a
> first step before THE release :).
>
> - Romain
>
>
> 2012/3/19 Matt Benson <gu...@gmail.com>
>
> > On Mon, Mar 19, 2012 at 3:19 PM, Mohammad Nour El-Din
> > <no...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > +1
> > >
> > > I want to volunteer to do it I have not done anything for BVal since
> its
> > > start.
> > >
> >
> > Great, thanks!
> >
> > > As per the release of 0.4 I think this would be something we need to
> put
> > it
> > > in there. Is there any rough estimate on when we need to cut the 0.4
> > > release ?
> >
> > As far as I know our friends at OpenEJB want to include our next
> > release in a new version of TomEE, and may be blocked waiting. In the
> > interest of community I'd like to give it to them ASAP, but I don't
> > personally consider the logging issue to be a blocker to 0.4,
> > depending on your schedule.
> >
> > Matt
> >
> > >
> > > On Mon, Mar 19, 2012 at 8:50 PM, Mark Struberg <st...@yahoo.de>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > >> yup, jul is shitty but better than having 3rd party deps.
> > >>
> > >> +1
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> LieGrue,
> > >> strub
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> ----- Original Message -----
> > >> > From: Matthias Wessendorf <ma...@apache.org>
> > >> > To: "dev@bval.apache.org" <de...@bval.apache.org>
> > >> > Cc:
> > >> > Sent: Monday, March 19, 2012 8:46 PM
> > >> > Subject: Re: Logging API
> > >> >
> > >> > +1
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> > On Monday, March 19, 2012, Gerhard Petracek <
> > gerhard.petracek@gmail.com>
> > >> > wrote:
> > >> >> +1
> > >> >>
> > >> >> regards,
> > >> >> gerhard
> > >> >>
> > >> >>
> > >> >>
> > >> >> 2012/3/19 Matt Benson <gu...@gmail.com>
> > >> >>
> > >> >>> Apparently the selection of slf4j might not suit everyone. While
> > I am
> > >> >>> comfortable enough with its API (I prefer slf5j), it does cause
> us
> > to
> > >> >>> impose downstream dependencies on our users that aren't really
> > >> >>> necessary. As an implementation of an EE specification it would
> be
> > >> >>> nice of us to impose dependencies, particularly ones that
> require a
> > >> >>> degree of manual intervention like slf4j, on our users only when
> > >> >>> absolutely necessary. We have 233 .java files in src/main
> folders,
> > >> >>> only 10 of which contain the String "slf4j" by which I guess
> > >> > that we
> > >> >>> are only logging a very small amount of information, in which
> case
> > we
> > >> >>> might consider ourselves better citizens to simply use jul for
> BVal
> > >> >>> regardless of how we may feel about it in the context of
> > implementing
> > >> >>> applications.
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>> Thoughts?
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>> Matt
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>
> > >> >
> > >> > --
> > >> > Sent from Gmail Mobile
> > >> >
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Thanks
> > > - Mohammad Nour
> > > ----
> > > "Life is like riding a bicycle. To keep your balance you must keep
> > moving"
> > > - Albert Einstein
> >
>
--
Thanks
- Mohammad Nour
----
"Life is like riding a bicycle. To keep your balance you must keep moving"
- Albert Einstein
Re: Logging API
Posted by Romain Manni-Bucau <rm...@gmail.com>.
+1,
we (OpenEJB ;)) are waiting bval and owb and clearly next release can be a
first step before THE release :).
- Romain
2012/3/19 Matt Benson <gu...@gmail.com>
> On Mon, Mar 19, 2012 at 3:19 PM, Mohammad Nour El-Din
> <no...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > +1
> >
> > I want to volunteer to do it I have not done anything for BVal since its
> > start.
> >
>
> Great, thanks!
>
> > As per the release of 0.4 I think this would be something we need to put
> it
> > in there. Is there any rough estimate on when we need to cut the 0.4
> > release ?
>
> As far as I know our friends at OpenEJB want to include our next
> release in a new version of TomEE, and may be blocked waiting. In the
> interest of community I'd like to give it to them ASAP, but I don't
> personally consider the logging issue to be a blocker to 0.4,
> depending on your schedule.
>
> Matt
>
> >
> > On Mon, Mar 19, 2012 at 8:50 PM, Mark Struberg <st...@yahoo.de>
> wrote:
> >
> >> yup, jul is shitty but better than having 3rd party deps.
> >>
> >> +1
> >>
> >>
> >> LieGrue,
> >> strub
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> ----- Original Message -----
> >> > From: Matthias Wessendorf <ma...@apache.org>
> >> > To: "dev@bval.apache.org" <de...@bval.apache.org>
> >> > Cc:
> >> > Sent: Monday, March 19, 2012 8:46 PM
> >> > Subject: Re: Logging API
> >> >
> >> > +1
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > On Monday, March 19, 2012, Gerhard Petracek <
> gerhard.petracek@gmail.com>
> >> > wrote:
> >> >> +1
> >> >>
> >> >> regards,
> >> >> gerhard
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> 2012/3/19 Matt Benson <gu...@gmail.com>
> >> >>
> >> >>> Apparently the selection of slf4j might not suit everyone. While
> I am
> >> >>> comfortable enough with its API (I prefer slf5j), it does cause us
> to
> >> >>> impose downstream dependencies on our users that aren't really
> >> >>> necessary. As an implementation of an EE specification it would be
> >> >>> nice of us to impose dependencies, particularly ones that require a
> >> >>> degree of manual intervention like slf4j, on our users only when
> >> >>> absolutely necessary. We have 233 .java files in src/main folders,
> >> >>> only 10 of which contain the String "slf4j" by which I guess
> >> > that we
> >> >>> are only logging a very small amount of information, in which case
> we
> >> >>> might consider ourselves better citizens to simply use jul for BVal
> >> >>> regardless of how we may feel about it in the context of
> implementing
> >> >>> applications.
> >> >>>
> >> >>> Thoughts?
> >> >>>
> >> >>> Matt
> >> >>>
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> > --
> >> > Sent from Gmail Mobile
> >> >
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Thanks
> > - Mohammad Nour
> > ----
> > "Life is like riding a bicycle. To keep your balance you must keep
> moving"
> > - Albert Einstein
>
Re: Logging API
Posted by Matt Benson <gu...@gmail.com>.
On Mon, Mar 19, 2012 at 3:19 PM, Mohammad Nour El-Din
<no...@gmail.com> wrote:
> +1
>
> I want to volunteer to do it I have not done anything for BVal since its
> start.
>
Great, thanks!
> As per the release of 0.4 I think this would be something we need to put it
> in there. Is there any rough estimate on when we need to cut the 0.4
> release ?
As far as I know our friends at OpenEJB want to include our next
release in a new version of TomEE, and may be blocked waiting. In the
interest of community I'd like to give it to them ASAP, but I don't
personally consider the logging issue to be a blocker to 0.4,
depending on your schedule.
Matt
>
> On Mon, Mar 19, 2012 at 8:50 PM, Mark Struberg <st...@yahoo.de> wrote:
>
>> yup, jul is shitty but better than having 3rd party deps.
>>
>> +1
>>
>>
>> LieGrue,
>> strub
>>
>>
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> > From: Matthias Wessendorf <ma...@apache.org>
>> > To: "dev@bval.apache.org" <de...@bval.apache.org>
>> > Cc:
>> > Sent: Monday, March 19, 2012 8:46 PM
>> > Subject: Re: Logging API
>> >
>> > +1
>> >
>> >
>> > On Monday, March 19, 2012, Gerhard Petracek <ge...@gmail.com>
>> > wrote:
>> >> +1
>> >>
>> >> regards,
>> >> gerhard
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> 2012/3/19 Matt Benson <gu...@gmail.com>
>> >>
>> >>> Apparently the selection of slf4j might not suit everyone. While I am
>> >>> comfortable enough with its API (I prefer slf5j), it does cause us to
>> >>> impose downstream dependencies on our users that aren't really
>> >>> necessary. As an implementation of an EE specification it would be
>> >>> nice of us to impose dependencies, particularly ones that require a
>> >>> degree of manual intervention like slf4j, on our users only when
>> >>> absolutely necessary. We have 233 .java files in src/main folders,
>> >>> only 10 of which contain the String "slf4j" by which I guess
>> > that we
>> >>> are only logging a very small amount of information, in which case we
>> >>> might consider ourselves better citizens to simply use jul for BVal
>> >>> regardless of how we may feel about it in the context of implementing
>> >>> applications.
>> >>>
>> >>> Thoughts?
>> >>>
>> >>> Matt
>> >>>
>> >>
>> >
>> > --
>> > Sent from Gmail Mobile
>> >
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Thanks
> - Mohammad Nour
> ----
> "Life is like riding a bicycle. To keep your balance you must keep moving"
> - Albert Einstein
Re: Logging API
Posted by Mohammad Nour El-Din <no...@gmail.com>.
+1
I want to volunteer to do it I have not done anything for BVal since its
start.
As per the release of 0.4 I think this would be something we need to put it
in there. Is there any rough estimate on when we need to cut the 0.4
release ?
On Mon, Mar 19, 2012 at 8:50 PM, Mark Struberg <st...@yahoo.de> wrote:
> yup, jul is shitty but better than having 3rd party deps.
>
> +1
>
>
> LieGrue,
> strub
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> > From: Matthias Wessendorf <ma...@apache.org>
> > To: "dev@bval.apache.org" <de...@bval.apache.org>
> > Cc:
> > Sent: Monday, March 19, 2012 8:46 PM
> > Subject: Re: Logging API
> >
> > +1
> >
> >
> > On Monday, March 19, 2012, Gerhard Petracek <ge...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >> +1
> >>
> >> regards,
> >> gerhard
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> 2012/3/19 Matt Benson <gu...@gmail.com>
> >>
> >>> Apparently the selection of slf4j might not suit everyone. While I am
> >>> comfortable enough with its API (I prefer slf5j), it does cause us to
> >>> impose downstream dependencies on our users that aren't really
> >>> necessary. As an implementation of an EE specification it would be
> >>> nice of us to impose dependencies, particularly ones that require a
> >>> degree of manual intervention like slf4j, on our users only when
> >>> absolutely necessary. We have 233 .java files in src/main folders,
> >>> only 10 of which contain the String "slf4j" by which I guess
> > that we
> >>> are only logging a very small amount of information, in which case we
> >>> might consider ourselves better citizens to simply use jul for BVal
> >>> regardless of how we may feel about it in the context of implementing
> >>> applications.
> >>>
> >>> Thoughts?
> >>>
> >>> Matt
> >>>
> >>
> >
> > --
> > Sent from Gmail Mobile
> >
>
--
Thanks
- Mohammad Nour
----
"Life is like riding a bicycle. To keep your balance you must keep moving"
- Albert Einstein
Re: Logging API
Posted by Mark Struberg <st...@yahoo.de>.
yup, jul is shitty but better than having 3rd party deps.
+1
LieGrue,
strub
----- Original Message -----
> From: Matthias Wessendorf <ma...@apache.org>
> To: "dev@bval.apache.org" <de...@bval.apache.org>
> Cc:
> Sent: Monday, March 19, 2012 8:46 PM
> Subject: Re: Logging API
>
> +1
>
>
> On Monday, March 19, 2012, Gerhard Petracek <ge...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>> +1
>>
>> regards,
>> gerhard
>>
>>
>>
>> 2012/3/19 Matt Benson <gu...@gmail.com>
>>
>>> Apparently the selection of slf4j might not suit everyone. While I am
>>> comfortable enough with its API (I prefer slf5j), it does cause us to
>>> impose downstream dependencies on our users that aren't really
>>> necessary. As an implementation of an EE specification it would be
>>> nice of us to impose dependencies, particularly ones that require a
>>> degree of manual intervention like slf4j, on our users only when
>>> absolutely necessary. We have 233 .java files in src/main folders,
>>> only 10 of which contain the String "slf4j" by which I guess
> that we
>>> are only logging a very small amount of information, in which case we
>>> might consider ourselves better citizens to simply use jul for BVal
>>> regardless of how we may feel about it in the context of implementing
>>> applications.
>>>
>>> Thoughts?
>>>
>>> Matt
>>>
>>
>
> --
> Sent from Gmail Mobile
>
Re: Logging API
Posted by Matthias Wessendorf <ma...@apache.org>.
+1
On Monday, March 19, 2012, Gerhard Petracek <ge...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> +1
>
> regards,
> gerhard
>
>
>
> 2012/3/19 Matt Benson <gu...@gmail.com>
>
>> Apparently the selection of slf4j might not suit everyone. While I am
>> comfortable enough with its API (I prefer slf5j), it does cause us to
>> impose downstream dependencies on our users that aren't really
>> necessary. As an implementation of an EE specification it would be
>> nice of us to impose dependencies, particularly ones that require a
>> degree of manual intervention like slf4j, on our users only when
>> absolutely necessary. We have 233 .java files in src/main folders,
>> only 10 of which contain the String "slf4j" by which I guess that we
>> are only logging a very small amount of information, in which case we
>> might consider ourselves better citizens to simply use jul for BVal
>> regardless of how we may feel about it in the context of implementing
>> applications.
>>
>> Thoughts?
>>
>> Matt
>>
>
--
Sent from Gmail Mobile
Re: Logging API
Posted by Gerhard Petracek <ge...@gmail.com>.
+1
regards,
gerhard
2012/3/19 Matt Benson <gu...@gmail.com>
> Apparently the selection of slf4j might not suit everyone. While I am
> comfortable enough with its API (I prefer slf5j), it does cause us to
> impose downstream dependencies on our users that aren't really
> necessary. As an implementation of an EE specification it would be
> nice of us to impose dependencies, particularly ones that require a
> degree of manual intervention like slf4j, on our users only when
> absolutely necessary. We have 233 .java files in src/main folders,
> only 10 of which contain the String "slf4j" by which I guess that we
> are only logging a very small amount of information, in which case we
> might consider ourselves better citizens to simply use jul for BVal
> regardless of how we may feel about it in the context of implementing
> applications.
>
> Thoughts?
>
> Matt
>