You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@mina.apache.org by Trustin Lee <tr...@gmail.com> on 2007/09/27 09:32:10 UTC
Is SLF4J hard to configure? (read: do we need to provide a way to choose the logging framework?)
Hi,
I know SLF4J is a great logging framework for us, but I encounter with
many questions with configuring SLF4J to work with one's favorite
logging frameworks very often, via ML, IRC or personal e-mail.
IIRC, we already talked about providing a way to choose the logging
framework, but I thought it might worth to raise this issue again
because our community grew up since then. It might be a good idea to
make MINA independent from any logging framework by default and let
users choose it, like some libraries do:
IoLogger.setInstance(new Log4JLogger());
Basically it will remove the red tape for any users who are not
familiar with SLF4J logging framework, because most people are very
used to what commons-logging does or just to log4j or
java.util.logging. WDYT?
Trustin
--
what we call human nature is actually human habit
--
http://gleamynode.net/
--
PGP Key ID: 0x0255ECA6
Re: Is SLF4J hard to configure? (read: do we need to provide a way
to choose the logging framework?)
Posted by Jeroen Brattinga <je...@gmail.com>.
Well... since the documentation for SLF4J is very clear and easy to
understand, I don't really see a reason to abandon it. Personally I
think the (original) choice for this logging facade was perfect
(especially since you can change the actual logger on the spot, without
any code changes).
Jeroen Brattinga
Trustin Lee wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I know SLF4J is a great logging framework for us, but I encounter with
> many questions with configuring SLF4J to work with one's favorite
> logging frameworks very often, via ML, IRC or personal e-mail.
>
> IIRC, we already talked about providing a way to choose the logging
> framework, but I thought it might worth to raise this issue again
> because our community grew up since then. It might be a good idea to
> make MINA independent from any logging framework by default and let
> users choose it, like some libraries do:
>
> IoLogger.setInstance(new Log4JLogger());
>
> Basically it will remove the red tape for any users who are not
> familiar with SLF4J logging framework, because most people are very
> used to what commons-logging does or just to log4j or
> java.util.logging. WDYT?
>
> Trustin
>
Re: Is SLF4J hard to configure? (read: do we need to provide a way to choose the logging framework?)
Posted by Alex Karasulu <ak...@apache.org>.
Hi Trustin,
How about inquiring with Ceki to see if these concerns can be
addressed then see what other options exist? The idea of yet another
logging implementation is a bit nausiating: there are so many already
in existance. Adding yet another one to the mix especially to be
maintained by the mina community is just going to increase the
confusion around logging. People are just tired, annoyed and confused
with having to deal with all the logging choices.
On the otherhand you may have some very good reasons for it - if so
why not just join the slf4j community to fix these issues. I dont
think Ceki considering your history and reputation would object to
granting you commit access.
Alex
On 9/27/07, Trustin Lee <tr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 9/27/07, Maarten Bosteels <mb...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Hi Trustin,
> >
> > I don't like this idea.
> > It basically means that we are going to build are own logging-lib
> > facade, a job that SLF4J does very well.
> >
> > And IMHO it won't simplify things, we'll have to explain people how
> > our mechanism for choosing a logging-librarry works.
> >
> > Maybe a well-written FAQ entry about MINA and SLF4J would help out a lot ?
>
> Agreed, but there are some issues.
>
> > I agree that SLF4J is a great logging facade. It takes 10 minutes to
> > read the documentation, and I think anyone serious about server-side
> > java should take the time to check it out.
> >
> > I am also convinced that SLF4J is going to get more momentum in the
> future.
> > See the list of projects at the bottom of http://www.slf4j.org/index.html
>
> One disadvantage of SLF4J though is that it becomes unpredictable if
> people puts wrong jars or additional jars in the classpath. It might
> be a good idea if there's any way to diagnose such a problem. If we
> can do that, we could print some direct instruction to the users.
> Yes, it's what SLF4J has to offer, but I thought we can do that too.
>
> Another disadvantage of SLF4J is that it doesn't play well with
> java.util.logging. Related discussion is found here:
>
> http://www.nabble.com/java.util.logging.LogManager-Implementation--t3754880.html
>
> For example, we can't incorporate very well with Tomcat in logging
> because Tomcat is using java.util.logging.
>
> Trustin
> --
> what we call human nature is actually human habit
> --
> http://gleamynode.net/
> --
> PGP Key ID: 0x0255ECA6
>
Re: Is SLF4J hard to configure? (read: do we need to provide a way to choose the logging framework?)
Posted by Trustin Lee <tr...@gmail.com>.
On 9/27/07, Maarten Bosteels <mb...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 9/27/07, Maarten Bosteels <mb...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 9/27/07, Trustin Lee <tr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On 9/27/07, Maarten Bosteels <mb...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > Hi Trustin,
> > > >
> > > > I don't like this idea.
> > > > It basically means that we are going to build are own logging-lib
> > > > facade, a job that SLF4J does very well.
> > > >
> > > > And IMHO it won't simplify things, we'll have to explain people how
> > > > our mechanism for choosing a logging-librarry works.
> > > >
> > > > Maybe a well-written FAQ entry about MINA and SLF4J would help out a lot ?
> > >
> > > Agreed, but there are some issues.
> > >
> > > > I agree that SLF4J is a great logging facade. It takes 10 minutes to
> > > > read the documentation, and I think anyone serious about server-side
> > > > java should take the time to check it out.
> > > >
> > > > I am also convinced that SLF4J is going to get more momentum in the future.
> > > > See the list of projects at the bottom of http://www.slf4j.org/index.html
> > >
> > > One disadvantage of SLF4J though is that it becomes unpredictable if
> > > people puts wrong jars or additional jars in the classpath. It might
> > > be a good idea if there's any way to diagnose such a problem. If we
> > > can do that, we could print some direct instruction to the users.
> > > Yes, it's what SLF4J has to offer, but I thought we can do that too.
> >
> > Yes, we could check out if we can do something about that.
> > But if people put two versions of mina (or any other library) on the classpath
> > things become unpredictable as well.
> >
> > > Another disadvantage of SLF4J is that it doesn't play well with
> > > java.util.logging. Related discussion is found here:
> > >
> > > http://www.nabble.com/java.util.logging.LogManager-Implementation--t3754880.html
> > >
> > > For example, we can't incorporate very well with Tomcat in logging
> > > because Tomcat is using java.util.logging.
> >
> > AFAIK tomcat switched completely to Jakarta Commons Logging since 5.5.
> > We are using mina and SLF4J and log4j inside tomcat without any issues.
> >
> > I don't think it has ever used java.util.logging ?
> > It uses -Djava.util.logging.manager=org.apache.juli.ClassLoaderLogManager
> >
> > http://tomcat.apache.org/faq/logging.html
>
> correction:
> The tomcat code uses JCL exclusively but the default Tomcat
> configuration will use java.util.logging.
Oh I see. Wrong example. Your opinion makes perfect sense. :)
Trustin
--
what we call human nature is actually human habit
--
http://gleamynode.net/
--
PGP Key ID: 0x0255ECA6
Re: Is SLF4J hard to configure? (read: do we need to provide a way to choose the logging framework?)
Posted by Trustin Lee <tr...@gmail.com>.
Thanks Mark for the documentation effort! I also added a section
about configuring SLF4J. It should be enough...
Cheers,
Trustin
On 9/28/07, Mark <el...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I added a simple logging tutorial to
> http://mina.apache.org/documentation.html
>
> I hope this will help and at least we will have something to point people
> towards.
>
> On 9/27/07, Mike Heath <mh...@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> > Emmanuel Lecharny wrote:
> > > Any logging framework will have pros and cons. SLF4J are solving a lot
> > > of pb we had with log4j. It's not perfect, and users who are not
> > > completely aware of the existence of a documentation may have pb. This
> > > is pretty much a RTFM problem than a SLF4j pb.
> > >
> > > I would much more favor an augmented FAQ to any other options.
> >
> > +1 Emmanuel took the words out of my mouth.
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> ..Cheers
> Mark
>
--
what we call human nature is actually human habit
--
http://gleamynode.net/
--
PGP Key ID: 0x0255ECA6
Re: Is SLF4J hard to configure? (read: do we need to provide a way to choose the logging framework?)
Posted by Mark <el...@gmail.com>.
I added a simple logging tutorial to
http://mina.apache.org/documentation.html
I hope this will help and at least we will have something to point people
towards.
On 9/27/07, Mike Heath <mh...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> Emmanuel Lecharny wrote:
> > Any logging framework will have pros and cons. SLF4J are solving a lot
> > of pb we had with log4j. It's not perfect, and users who are not
> > completely aware of the existence of a documentation may have pb. This
> > is pretty much a RTFM problem than a SLF4j pb.
> >
> > I would much more favor an augmented FAQ to any other options.
>
> +1 Emmanuel took the words out of my mouth.
>
>
>
--
..Cheers
Mark
Re: Is SLF4J hard to configure? (read: do we need to provide a way
to choose the logging framework?)
Posted by Mike Heath <mh...@apache.org>.
Emmanuel Lecharny wrote:
> Any logging framework will have pros and cons. SLF4J are solving a lot
> of pb we had with log4j. It's not perfect, and users who are not
> completely aware of the existence of a documentation may have pb. This
> is pretty much a RTFM problem than a SLF4j pb.
>
> I would much more favor an augmented FAQ to any other options.
+1 Emmanuel took the words out of my mouth.
Re: Is SLF4J hard to configure? (read: do we need to provide a way to choose the logging framework?)
Posted by Emmanuel Lecharny <el...@gmail.com>.
Any logging framework will have pros and cons. SLF4J are solving a lot
of pb we had with log4j. It's not perfect, and users who are not
completely aware of the existence of a documentation may have pb. This
is pretty much a RTFM problem than a SLF4j pb.
I would much more favor an augmented FAQ to any other options.
--
Regards,
Cordialement,
Emmanuel Lécharny
www.iktek.com
Re: Is SLF4J hard to configure? (read: do we need to provide a way to choose the logging framework?)
Posted by Maarten Bosteels <mb...@gmail.com>.
On 9/27/07, Maarten Bosteels <mb...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 9/27/07, Trustin Lee <tr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 9/27/07, Maarten Bosteels <mb...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Hi Trustin,
> > >
> > > I don't like this idea.
> > > It basically means that we are going to build are own logging-lib
> > > facade, a job that SLF4J does very well.
> > >
> > > And IMHO it won't simplify things, we'll have to explain people how
> > > our mechanism for choosing a logging-librarry works.
> > >
> > > Maybe a well-written FAQ entry about MINA and SLF4J would help out a lot ?
> >
> > Agreed, but there are some issues.
> >
> > > I agree that SLF4J is a great logging facade. It takes 10 minutes to
> > > read the documentation, and I think anyone serious about server-side
> > > java should take the time to check it out.
> > >
> > > I am also convinced that SLF4J is going to get more momentum in the future.
> > > See the list of projects at the bottom of http://www.slf4j.org/index.html
> >
> > One disadvantage of SLF4J though is that it becomes unpredictable if
> > people puts wrong jars or additional jars in the classpath. It might
> > be a good idea if there's any way to diagnose such a problem. If we
> > can do that, we could print some direct instruction to the users.
> > Yes, it's what SLF4J has to offer, but I thought we can do that too.
>
> Yes, we could check out if we can do something about that.
> But if people put two versions of mina (or any other library) on the classpath
> things become unpredictable as well.
>
> > Another disadvantage of SLF4J is that it doesn't play well with
> > java.util.logging. Related discussion is found here:
> >
> > http://www.nabble.com/java.util.logging.LogManager-Implementation--t3754880.html
> >
> > For example, we can't incorporate very well with Tomcat in logging
> > because Tomcat is using java.util.logging.
>
> AFAIK tomcat switched completely to Jakarta Commons Logging since 5.5.
> We are using mina and SLF4J and log4j inside tomcat without any issues.
>
> I don't think it has ever used java.util.logging ?
> It uses -Djava.util.logging.manager=org.apache.juli.ClassLoaderLogManager
>
> http://tomcat.apache.org/faq/logging.html
correction:
The tomcat code uses JCL exclusively but the default Tomcat
configuration will use java.util.logging.
>
> Maarten
>
> > Trustin
> > --
> > what we call human nature is actually human habit
> > --
> > http://gleamynode.net/
> > --
> > PGP Key ID: 0x0255ECA6
> >
>
Re: Is SLF4J hard to configure? (read: do we need to provide a way to choose the logging framework?)
Posted by Maarten Bosteels <mb...@gmail.com>.
On 9/27/07, Trustin Lee <tr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 9/27/07, Maarten Bosteels <mb...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Hi Trustin,
> >
> > I don't like this idea.
> > It basically means that we are going to build are own logging-lib
> > facade, a job that SLF4J does very well.
> >
> > And IMHO it won't simplify things, we'll have to explain people how
> > our mechanism for choosing a logging-librarry works.
> >
> > Maybe a well-written FAQ entry about MINA and SLF4J would help out a lot ?
>
> Agreed, but there are some issues.
>
> > I agree that SLF4J is a great logging facade. It takes 10 minutes to
> > read the documentation, and I think anyone serious about server-side
> > java should take the time to check it out.
> >
> > I am also convinced that SLF4J is going to get more momentum in the future.
> > See the list of projects at the bottom of http://www.slf4j.org/index.html
>
> One disadvantage of SLF4J though is that it becomes unpredictable if
> people puts wrong jars or additional jars in the classpath. It might
> be a good idea if there's any way to diagnose such a problem. If we
> can do that, we could print some direct instruction to the users.
> Yes, it's what SLF4J has to offer, but I thought we can do that too.
Yes, we could check out if we can do something about that.
But if people put two versions of mina (or any other library) on the classpath
things become unpredictable as well.
> Another disadvantage of SLF4J is that it doesn't play well with
> java.util.logging. Related discussion is found here:
>
> http://www.nabble.com/java.util.logging.LogManager-Implementation--t3754880.html
>
> For example, we can't incorporate very well with Tomcat in logging
> because Tomcat is using java.util.logging.
AFAIK tomcat switched completely to Jakarta Commons Logging since 5.5.
We are using mina and SLF4J and log4j inside tomcat without any issues.
I don't think it has ever used java.util.logging ?
It uses -Djava.util.logging.manager=org.apache.juli.ClassLoaderLogManager
http://tomcat.apache.org/faq/logging.html
Maarten
> Trustin
> --
> what we call human nature is actually human habit
> --
> http://gleamynode.net/
> --
> PGP Key ID: 0x0255ECA6
>
Re: Is SLF4J hard to configure? (read: do we need to provide a way to choose the logging framework?)
Posted by Trustin Lee <tr...@gmail.com>.
On 9/27/07, Maarten Bosteels <mb...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Trustin,
>
> I don't like this idea.
> It basically means that we are going to build are own logging-lib
> facade, a job that SLF4J does very well.
>
> And IMHO it won't simplify things, we'll have to explain people how
> our mechanism for choosing a logging-librarry works.
>
> Maybe a well-written FAQ entry about MINA and SLF4J would help out a lot ?
Agreed, but there are some issues.
> I agree that SLF4J is a great logging facade. It takes 10 minutes to
> read the documentation, and I think anyone serious about server-side
> java should take the time to check it out.
>
> I am also convinced that SLF4J is going to get more momentum in the future.
> See the list of projects at the bottom of http://www.slf4j.org/index.html
One disadvantage of SLF4J though is that it becomes unpredictable if
people puts wrong jars or additional jars in the classpath. It might
be a good idea if there's any way to diagnose such a problem. If we
can do that, we could print some direct instruction to the users.
Yes, it's what SLF4J has to offer, but I thought we can do that too.
Another disadvantage of SLF4J is that it doesn't play well with
java.util.logging. Related discussion is found here:
http://www.nabble.com/java.util.logging.LogManager-Implementation--t3754880.html
For example, we can't incorporate very well with Tomcat in logging
because Tomcat is using java.util.logging.
Trustin
--
what we call human nature is actually human habit
--
http://gleamynode.net/
--
PGP Key ID: 0x0255ECA6
Re: Is SLF4J hard to configure? (read: do we need to provide a way to choose the logging framework?)
Posted by Maarten Bosteels <mb...@gmail.com>.
Hi Trustin,
I don't like this idea.
It basically means that we are going to build are own logging-lib
facade, a job that SLF4J does very well.
And IMHO it won't simplify things, we'll have to explain people how
our mechanism for choosing a logging-librarry works.
Maybe a well-written FAQ entry about MINA and SLF4J would help out a lot ?
I agree that SLF4J is a great logging facade. It takes 10 minutes to
read the documentation, and I think anyone serious about server-side
java should take the time to check it out.
I am also convinced that SLF4J is going to get more momentum in the future.
See the list of projects at the bottom of http://www.slf4j.org/index.html
just my 2 cents.
Maarten
On 9/27/07, Trustin Lee <tr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I know SLF4J is a great logging framework for us, but I encounter with
> many questions with configuring SLF4J to work with one's favorite
> logging frameworks very often, via ML, IRC or personal e-mail.
>
> IIRC, we already talked about providing a way to choose the logging
> framework, but I thought it might worth to raise this issue again
> because our community grew up since then. It might be a good idea to
> make MINA independent from any logging framework by default and let
> users choose it, like some libraries do:
>
> IoLogger.setInstance(new Log4JLogger());
>
> Basically it will remove the red tape for any users who are not
> familiar with SLF4J logging framework, because most people are very
> used to what commons-logging does or just to log4j or
> java.util.logging. WDYT?
>
> Trustin
> --
> what we call human nature is actually human habit
> --
> http://gleamynode.net/
> --
> PGP Key ID: 0x0255ECA6
>