[Discuss] How do we remove the old logging

[Christian Schneider <ch...@die-schneider.net>]

For some time now we have the new logging system (located in 
rt/features/logging). I would like to discuss how we transition to the 
new system.

I propose the following:

We deprecate all parts of the old logging system and define a CXF 
version when it will be removed.
The new logging should completely life in the features/logging module.

I propose we remove the old logging either in CXF 3.3 or in CXF 4 
depending if we plan to do a new major version in mid term (~ a year).

As soon as we decided which version to remove the logging in we should 
document the planned removal in the javadoc of the entry points of 
logging and on the website. So people will have an early warning.

Some implications when switching to the new system:

- When using the class switch to this class: 
org.apache.cxf.ext.logging.LoggingFeature
- When using the annotation: Switch to org.apache.cxf.ext.logging.Logging
- The xml namespace will not exist in the new system. Use either the 
class or the annotation
- Some configs of the old system will not exist in the new one. In 
general it the new system should be more flexible though

Dan is following a slightly different style by for example reusing the 
old @Logging annotation and not deprecating it. I personally would like 
to avoid that to have a clean cut.

What do you think?

Christian


-- 
Christian Schneider
http://www.liquid-reality.de

Open Source Architect
http://www.talend.com

Re: [Discuss] How do we remove the old logging

[Sergey Beryozkin <sb...@gmail.com>]

Hi Christian

Sometimes I'm thinking why are we doing it, to me the optional logging 
of the requests and responses is not en extension, very much the core 
functionality, but well, now that we are moving ahead with improving the 
new feature, it is an argument which is not worth pursuing, see for more 
comments below

On 13/03/17 14:20, Christian Schneider wrote:
> For some time now we have the new logging system (located in
> rt/features/logging). I would like to discuss how we transition to the
> new system.
>
> I propose the following:
>
> We deprecate all parts of the old logging system and define a CXF
> version when it will be removed.
> The new logging should completely life in the features/logging module.
>
> I propose we remove the old logging either in CXF 3.3 or in CXF 4
> depending if we plan to do a new major version in mid term (~ a year).
I would not rush with removing the old feature, we are only making a new 
feature more or less operational for 3.2.0, lets revisit the issue of 
removing the old logging feature once we have enough evidence the 
majority of the users have migrated

>
> As soon as we decided which version to remove the logging in we should
> document the planned removal in the javadoc of the entry points of
> logging and on the website. So people will have an early warning.
>
We do not need to rush

> Some implications when switching to the new system:
>
> - When using the class switch to this class:
> org.apache.cxf.ext.logging.LoggingFeature
> - When using the annotation: Switch to org.apache.cxf.ext.logging.Logging
> - The xml namespace will not exist in the new system. Use either the
> class or the annotation

Why exactly not ? Because XML is not cool anymore ? Forcing the 
intrusive coupling to the new feature at the code level is not the best 
idea IMHO, it is the idea that works for some users but I don't want to 
tell for ex JAX-RS users to add CXF specific annotations in their code 
in order to get the logging done.

> - Some configs of the old system will not exist in the new one. In
> general it the new system should be more flexible though
>
Sorry, I simply don't get it. CXF is not a research project, it is used 
in the production, with the 'old' feature being enhanced in response to 
the various user requests. How can we consider just forget about those 
bits and pieces ?


> Dan is following a slightly different style by for example reusing the
> old @Logging annotation and not deprecating it. I personally would like
> to avoid that to have a clean cut.
>
IMHO we need to ensure the new feature is capable of supporting of what 
the old feature can first and then start considering removing the old one

Thanks, Sergey
> What do you think?
>
> Christian
>
>


-- 
Sergey Beryozkin

Talend Community Coders
http://coders.talend.com/