We are already using other libraries in various parts of our code (e.g., metrics, zkclient, joptsimple, etc) some of which pull in these other logging dependencies anyway. i.e., what do we gain by using jul? There may be a good reason why people don't use jul so I think we should fully understand that before going with jul. So it may be simpler to just stick with log4j for the client rewrites and investigate logging later.
log4j2 is becoming more widespread and many users seem to be favorable toward logback. slf4j would cover all of these very easily. From what I understand jul does not make it very easy to plug in with these various options but I could be wrong. I completely agree on the need to fix our client logging as that will go a long way in usability for end-users unless we want to keep getting asked the "Why do I see this ERROR in my logs..?" questions. Joel On Mon, Feb 03, 2014 at 11:08:39AM -0800, Neha Narkhede wrote: > >> Basically my preference would be java.util.logging unless there is some > known problem with it, otherwise I guess slf4j, and if not that then log4j. > > +1. My preference is to use java.util.logging to avoid adding an external > dependency, > but I'm not too sure about what's the "standard" out there, so open to > suggestions > on picking a different library. > > > > On Mon, Feb 3, 2014 at 11:00 AM, Jay Kreps <jay.kr...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > We probably need to add a small amount of logging in the new producer and > > (soon) consumer clients. I wanted to have a quick discussion on logging > > libraries before I start adding this in the producer. > > > > Previously we have been pretty verbose loggers and I think we should stop > > that. For clients you mostly don't need to log: if there is an error you > > should throw it back not log it, so you don't need ERROR logging. Likewise > > I think it is rude to pollute peoples logs with the details of client > > initialization (establishing connections, etc), so you don't need INFO > > logging. However perhaps there is an argument to be made for WARN and > > DEBUG. I think it is perhaps useful to log a WARN when a server breaks a > > connection or metadata initialization fails. It can sometimes also be > > useful to be able to enable debug logging to see step by step processing in > > the client, which is the case for DEBUG logging. > > > > Here is my knowledge about the state of Java logging: > > 1. Most people still use log4j. The server is using log4j. > > 2. Second runner-up in slf4j. I personally consider slf4j pretty silly but > > this is perhaps the more flexible choice since people can plug in different > > stuff. > > 3. java.util.logging ships with the jdk, but for some reason no one uses > > it. > > 4. There is no critical mass around any other logging library. > > > > The context for how to think about this is the following. We are not trying > > to pick the "best" logging library. Fundamentally logging is pretty > > straight-forward and for our simple use case it is inconceivable that any > > particular library could be much better than any other in terms of feature > > set. We want the most standard library. My goal is to minimize the > > dependencies of the client and make our basic logging cases work for most > > cases. > > > > Is there a reason not to just the java.util.logging? It comes with the jdk > > and supports pluggable appenders so people who have some other library can > > plug that in right? > > > > Basically my preference would be java.util.logging unless there is some > > known problem with it, otherwise I guess slf4j, and if not that then log4j. > > > > Thougts? > > > > -Jay > >
