Again, I have nothing against JUL, I try to use it each time I can in
projects, but it's closer to zero (because projects already use other
logging frameworks). So my proposal to create a standard has nothing with
"I don't like it" or "It's too hard" but more "people don't use it, so
let's ask ourselves why".
I see several technical reasons : JUL is made of classes, no interfaces, so
there is no way to change the implementation. If people didn't like
the default JUL implementation (because of any kind of reasons), they would
be able to build new implementations based on the interfaces. It's not the
case. Logs make me think of XML manipulation : it's vital, it's on every
project. So why don't we have a separate JSR that handles it (like JAXP and
so on) ? JUL hasn't changed since day one... but the world is changing. If
we had a JSR we would have had JUL 1.0, JUL 1.1, JUL 2.0 with a RI, a TCK
and several implementations (LOG4J, SLF4J...). Look at JCache. At least
there is a JSR. It can be dormant but one day reappears and
gets completely rewritten following the JCP rules.
I agree with you that sometimes developers prefer to write their own
frameworks rather than changing the existing one. But because of the
structure of JUL (classes, no interface) and the fact that there is only
one implementation (no JSR) there is not much developers can do if they are
not happy. What not do like Date/Tim JSR ? Calendar/Date in Java doesn't
suit every use case, let's do something different. Developers have at least
the choice to use Dates in the JDK or one in JSR 310 which are (will be)
standard. I don't know how Steve Colbourne handled it, but I'm sure that
trying to radically change java.util.Date in the JDK was much more
difficult (or impossible) than creating a JSR. So I really don't feel like
talking to the JDK team would help. If you want me to, I will, but I don't
see how we could change JUL (we would deprecate most of the API to create a
new one in the same package, not worth it).
I want to stress out that I'm still receiving many emails, comments and
tweets about this Logging API spec. So it really looks like the community
has the same struggles with the dozens of frameworks out there and want to
do something more standard. A Logging API with a set of interfaces, a RI
and a TCK would really help (and who knows, JUL would maybe implement it).
Antonio
On Mon, Sep 10, 2012 at 9:53 PM, Bill Shannon <bill.shannon_at_oracle.com>wrote:
> It's always easier to create something new that meets exactly your own
> needs, with no requirement to be compatible with anything. But if you want
> Oracle to support a new standard API for logging, I think you're going to
> need to convince us that the existing standard API for logging can't be
> improved to meet your needs.
>
> "I don't like it" is not a reason.
>
> "It's too hard" is not a reason.
>
> "No one uses it" is not a reason.
>
> "That's not the way I would've done it" is not a reason.
>
> The existing API wasn't created in a vacuum - it was created by a group of
> experts from many companies who had experience with logging. Maybe we've
> learned a lot about logging since then. If so, convince us.
>
> My impression is that most of the existing logging frameworks were created
> by someone who wanted something more or different out of logging than they
> could get with java.util.logging, and since they couldn't change
> java.util.logging they built something alongside it or on top of it. Well,
> what if you *could* change java.util.logging? Could you make it do what
> you think it should do?
>
> Either way, the place to make your argument is probably in the OpenJDK
> project.
>
>
> Antonio Goncalves wrote on 09/09/12 09:51:
>
> Hi Bill,
>
> As for JUL I won't go to any debat. I was the first one to push it on my
> project back in 2003/2004. Since then, I've never seen it used (except in
> GlassFish). So I'm not saying it's broken, I'm saying that nobody uses JUL,
> so let's use something else... but standard. A bit like JodaTime which
> is preferred to the Calendar/Date API. And, to be honest, I think it will
> be much more difficult (or impossible) to change JUL in the JDK than
> creating something new (a bit like changing Calendar/Date, rather use 310).
> Hopefully, when the JDK becomes modular, JUL will be a module we can skip.
>
> Like you I think that being a spec lead is hard work (that's why I won't
> do it), that's why I asked you if Oracle would support this effort. For
> what I've seen in my blog and Tweets, it looks like there are many people
> out there who would be interested in taking the job. But because it's so
> much hard work, an official support would help. Like Werner mentioned,
> there are a few JSRs out there that have been pushed by individuals
> (Date/Time is one of them). But I've seen that maybe some companies could
> also lead this JSR... who knows.
>
> I really think that people are waiting for a standard Logging API and
> trying to enhance JUL is risky and would be very time consuming (as people
> would disagree with each other, as they've been doing with all the logging
> frameworks out there for so long). So if a bunch of experts are ready to
> seat around the table and create a new JSR, why not ?
>
> Antonio
>
> On Fri, Sep 7, 2012 at 9:47 PM, Bill Shannon <bill.shannon_at_oracle.com>wrote:
>
>> I'm not sure I fully understand what you're proposing...
>>
>> If you're proposing a new logging framework to replace java.util.logging,
>> then, well, I can't speak for the JDK team but I think you need to engage
>> with them in the OpenJDK project to see what they would think of that. I
>> have a hard time believing that java.util.logging is so broken it can't be
>> made better and has to be replaced.
>>
>> If you're proposing something specific to Java EE that works with or
>> layers on java.util.logging, then I need to understand it better before I
>> can support it.
>>
>> In either case, you should note that the track record of individuals
>> delivering successful JSRs through the JCP is very poor. Delivering a JSR
>> is a significant amount of work, usually much more work than any single
>> person can do. I would be very skeptical of any individual, or even some
>> loosely affiliated open source project, being able to deliver a JSR
>> successfully. It requires a lot of hard work that isn't just the "fun"
>> part of writing the code. It's not impossible, but there aren't many
>> existence proofs. Oracle "supporting" the JSR is not going to change
>> that. It's not (just) about motivation or commitment, it's about resources.
>>
>>
>> Antonio Goncalves wrote on 09/07/12 05:29:
>>
>> Hi everybody,
>>
>> Just to let you know that my blog has been viewed by 1401 people in the
>> last 24 hours and I've received many tweets and comments... mostly by
>> developers who struggle on a day to day basis with logs.
>>
>> Bill, Linda, shall we go a little bit further and have Oracle clearly
>> support this effort ? I think individual developers are scared to put their
>> finger into the JCP : it's much easier to create a GitHub repository and
>> create a new/funny logging framework than fill JSPA forms to become spec
>> lead. If you think this Logging API JSR is important (inside Java EE 7 or
>> not, that's not the issue now, but just to have a JSR), then it would
>> encourage developers if you would publicly (blog ? tweet ?) support the
>> idea and encourage them to become spec lead.
>>
>> What do you think ?
>>
>> Antonio
>>
>> On Fri, Sep 7, 2012 at 11:04 AM, Werner Keil <werner.keil_at_gmail.com>wrote:
>>
>>> ...will be, it hasn't happened yet, sorry.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Antonio Goncalves
>> Software architect and Java Champion
>>
>> Web site <http://www.antoniogoncalves.org> | Twitter<http://twitter.com/agoncal>|
>> LinkedIn <http://www.linkedin.com/in/agoncal> | Paris JUG<http://www.parisjug.org> |
>> Devoxx France <http://www.devoxx.fr>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Antonio Goncalves
> Software architect and Java Champion
>
> Web site <http://www.antoniogoncalves.org> | Twitter<http://twitter.com/agoncal>|
> LinkedIn <http://www.linkedin.com/in/agoncal> | Paris JUG<http://www.parisjug.org> |
> Devoxx France <http://www.devoxx.fr>
>
>
>
--
Antonio Goncalves
Software architect and Java Champion
Web site <http://www.antoniogoncalves.org> |
Twitter<http://twitter.com/agoncal>|
LinkedIn <http://www.linkedin.com/in/agoncal> | Paris
JUG<http://www.parisjug.org> |
Devoxx France <http://www.devoxx.fr>