Alright, I'm sold. If no objections, slf4j it is. -Jay
On Mon, Feb 3, 2014 at 1:11 PM, Joel Koshy <jjkosh...@gmail.com> wrote: > > I see server and client logging and dependencies are really different in > my > > mind. The server is a standalone process. Once we decouple the clients I > > think we can actually be a lot more aggressive about using more libraries > > on the server, why not? We have avoided that so far because they > inevitably > > leak into the clients since they arent separated. > > > > The problem on the client side is that if we choose anything used by our > > clients and there is any incompatibility then they can't use kafka. > > > > From my point of view the improved logging libraries (log4j2, logback, > etc) > > are the worst option. They are new so likely will have api changes, and > few > > people use them so they don't get the benefit of sharing the same logging > > library. > > Right - I was actually advocating sl4fj for this very reason (not a > specific logging implementation). > > Clients would use the producer/consumer as part of some larger system > that is more than likely to use something other than j.u.l (since no > one seems to use it). With a layer like slf4j clients can choose > whatever logging implementation they wish. If we go with j.u.l then > we would force all clients to include a j.u.l configuration file just > for their producer/consumer in addition to the configuration file for > the rest of their system. > > Thanks, > > Joel > > > > > On Mon, Feb 3, 2014 at 11:17 AM, Joel Koshy <jjkosh...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > 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 > > > > > > > > > > > > >
