Re: [jci] commons-logging use Was: patches

[Brett Porter <br...@apache.org>]

Torsten Curdt wrote:
> I really dislike the idea of a fork at this stage.

Agreed. I'm trying to bring back a fork, so let's not make a third :)

> As of the event model - it just feels a bit like
> re-inventing commons-logging.

I don't agree (this is why I've posted here, not under a [logging] 
thread - I don't think this is about the relative merits of c-l).

I think the compiler API warrants its own event listening interface. 
Sure, the compiler outputs info warning and error messages, but these 
are from the compiler and not the compiler API which also has its info 
warning and error (and debug) logging messages. And I think the API has 
some richer events - like when it starts processing a certain file, for 
example.

Note that we don't use c-l in Maven because Maven's classloader is 
shared with the plugins and that was often a problem in Maven 1.x (which 
did use c-l and log4j). Now while that doesn't mean the compiler plugin 
can't use it via jci, it would be nicer to implement the above jci event 
interface and log them using the native Maven logging.

Cheers,
Brett

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

Re: [jci] commons-logging use Was: patches

[Torsten Curdt <tc...@apache.org>]

>> I really dislike the idea of a fork at this stage.
>
> Agreed. I'm trying to bring back a fork, so let's not make a third :)

:-)

>> As of the event model - it just feels a bit like
>> re-inventing commons-logging.
>
> I don't agree (this is why I've posted here, not under a [logging]  
> thread - I don't think this is about the relative merits of c-l).
>
> I think the compiler API warrants its own event listening  
> interface. Sure, the compiler outputs info warning and error  
> messages, but these are from the compiler and not the compiler API  
> which also has its info warning and error (and debug) logging  
> messages. And I think the API has some richer events - like when it  
> starts processing a certain file, for example.

That's true. It does make sense to integrate something like that.
(The ProblemHandler goes already in such a direction)

...but that does not cover the logging for jci itself.

We could remove the logging completely but I don't really
like the idea as it makes debugging more complicated.
Especially for the FAM it's sometimes really useful to see
what's going on under the hood.

> Note that we don't use c-l in Maven because Maven's classloader is  
> shared with the plugins and that was often a problem in Maven 1.x  
> (which did use c-l and log4j). Now while that doesn't mean the  
> compiler plugin can't use it via jci, it would be nicer to  
> implement the above jci event interface and log them using the  
> native Maven logging.

Sure, but IMO this is a separate thing.

cheers
--
Torsten