This discussion (logging for JSPWiki) has been done before 5 years ago, see JSPWIKI-376 [#1]. It also has already been implemented in JSPWIKI 3.0, but got regressed when we decided to drop JCR and Stripes and going with 2.9. I have read both the pro's and con's and in the end I don't mind that much, at the moment I would opt for doing nothing and spend time on the other issues. BTW: [#1] also notes that you cannot use MBeans if you want the slf4j facade.
So a +0 from me here. regards, Harry [#1] - https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JSPWIKI-376 On 30 July 2013 02:36, Ichiro Furusato <ichiro.furus...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Juan Pablo, > > I don't have a vote here, nor am I advocating for one really. I'm just > noting > that in three relatively large enterprise environments that I know of > recently > they are all using Log4j, having discussed (similar to the discussion here) > alternatives such as SLF4j. I certainly understand the rationale for SLF4j, > especially in a world where there is a requirement for mixed libraries, so > I > suppose I don't have an alternative in that regard. > > A recent large-scale project involved a bespoke approach that sounds > similar to your LoggerManager idea, and while that worked find (and > fulfilled a requirement of logging messages to different logs depending > on context) it did mean that of the thousands of files in the project they > all used this bespoke logger rather than a "standard" like Log4j. I found > this a rather ugly solution in that the project was locked into this > solution > and any deficiencies (such as scaleability or bug fixes by an external > team focused on logging) weren't really met. > > In any case, just throwing in my 2c on finding little value in the SLF4j > approach, but certainly YMMV. Logging in Java has always been an > issue -- too bad log4j hadn't been adopted into the JDK instead of it > into Apache, then we'd not really have any need for the facades... too > late for that sadly. > > Ichiro > > > On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 10:17 AM, Juan Pablo Santos RodrÃguez < > juanpablo.san...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Hi Ichiro, > > > > we're relying on several 3rd party libraries, each of them relying on > > several logging frameworks. SLF4J would allow us to consolidate all > > application-related logging to the same place. It also supports > > parameterized log messages, which is a nice to have. As the underlying > > logging framework, Logback is seen as the evolution of log4j (done by the > > same author + [#1]). On the other hand, log4j 2 looks pretty nice too, > > seems it's faster and has more features, however it's still in beta, so > API > > may be broken towards 1.0.0. > > > > Regardless we stick to Log4J, switch to SLF4J+Logback, use Log4j2 or > > whatever, what I was having in mind was: > > > > - having a custom facade: o.a.w.log.WLogger (or WikiLogger, name doesn't > > matter right now). It should have the logging methods we're all used to > > (debug, info, etc) and would hide the log implementation used throughout > > the application. I think this should be a must, reasons below. > > - means to change the log level of a given package at runtime, with no > > restarts required. Most probably through an JMX MBean (btw logback > provides > > means to do this up to method level) > > - a LoggerManager to be init'ed from WikiEngine/EntityManager, performing > > start-up and shutdown tasks related to logging (read jspwiki.property as > > config file, init'ing and destroying the MBean and maybe some more > things) > > > > If we isolate the logging framework and later on we decide that the > changes > > weren't good enough, we can revert to log4j again as the underlying > logging > > implementation, without touching mostly every single file from src. > > Switching to SLF4J + Logback or Log4j2 as the logging framework is > > something to be done as soon as we have isolated the logging framework. > > They require more or less the same amount of configuration as Log4J and > > they provide additional benefits enough to make me think it's worth the > > effort. > > > > Finally, as switching the underlying logging library is a big change, I > > think we should run a vote here at dev to decide which library to use > > > > > > br, > > juan pablo > > > > > > [#1]: logback.qos.ch/reasonsToSwitch.html IMO, esp. interesting > automatic > > compression for FileAppender and graceful recovery from I/O errors > > > > On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 11:48 PM, Glen Mazza <glen.ma...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > > I put that item in because JP had requested it. JP +1'ed Style C/Sun > > > indentation, which makes you and me happy, so I'll happily give him his > > > logging preference of choice, as long as it's a competent solution, and > > it > > > is, so that's good enough for me. On a team, you have to give and take > > to > > > make everyone happy. > > > > > > Glen > > > > > > > > > On 07/29/2013 05:08 PM, Ichiro Furusato wrote: > > > > > >> I've followed this debate for years now and it's hard to really > justify > > >> (to > > >> my mind at least) > > >> not simply going with Log4j. It's all but a standard. I've used the > > JDK's > > >> logging facility > > >> and SLF4J and there simply is no added benefit to a facade API. The > only > > >> real justification > > >> would be a project where one didn't want to use *any* additional > > >> libraries. > > >> As JSPWiki > > >> is hardly in that category I'd recommend simply including the > log4j.jar > > >> file and being done > > >> with it. Log4j works fine and pretty much the entire Java community > > knows > > >> and uses it. > > >> Having a facade over it doesn't really provide any benefits and makes > > log > > >> configuration > > >> just a bit more complicated, especially when JSPWiki is being used in > a > > >> mixed logging > > >> environment. > > >> > > >> So I'd be interested in hearing the arguments in favour of SLF4j, > i.e., > > >> what actual gains > > >> are expected. > > >> > > >> Ichiro > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 4:17 AM, Glen Mazza (JIRA) <j...@apache.org> > > >> wrote: > > >> > > >> Glen Mazza created JSPWIKI-795: > > >>> ------------------------------**---- > > >>> > > >>> Summary: Update logging subsystem in JSPWiki > > >>> Key: JSPWIKI-795 > > >>> URL: https://issues.apache.org/** > > >>> jira/browse/JSPWIKI-795< > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JSPWIKI-795> > > >>> Project: JSPWiki > > >>> Issue Type: Improvement > > >>> Reporter: Glen Mazza > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> Juan Pablo recommended a switch to SLF4J + [Logback | Log4j2]. > > >>> > > >>> -- > > >>> This message is automatically generated by JIRA. > > >>> If you think it was sent incorrectly, please contact your JIRA > > >>> administrators > > >>> For more information on JIRA, see: http://www.atlassian.com/** > > >>> software/jira <http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira> > > >>> > > >>> > > > > > >
