In WildFly and JBoss EAP, we have a (fairly complex) system which uses
our own log manager based on JUL and also has special API stubs for
log4j, log4j2, slf4j, and Apache commons-logging, which means that
logging for all these systems all get merged into one output that
supports most features of all the frameworks and APIs. But that doesn't
mean it's a good thing: this solution took an inordinate amount of
effort to accomplish, and definitely isn't practical for your average
standalone application which maybe pulls in libraries using three or
four differnt and possibly incompatible logging systems. I'd love to
see some sensible API to replace all the logging APIs, but there are the
two primary practical difficulties:
1. Nobody will ever agree what the "right" logging API would look like
(this is why we have so many of them: slf4j, jcl/Apache cl, log4j,
log4j2, JUL, and our own JBoss Logging API).
2. Nobody will ever agree what the "right" logging backend configuration
capabilities would be (this is why we have so many of them: logback,
log4j, log4j2, JUL, and our own JBoss Log Manager).
Even if these two problems would be solved, you'd really have to get
buy-in from all the primary logging backends (logback, log4j, log4j2,
and of course JUL) if you really want it to be successful, which is a
difficult proposition. The effects could end up making the problem
worse: existing logging facades would start shipping backends to the new
API, which in turn would forward to the API for the chosen backend,
adding yet more layers to an already overly-complex situation.
It's hard to see a clear plan that starts with "let's create a new log
API" and actually ends up with any kind of standardization on that API,
at least in under 5+ years time, given the sheer quantity of legacy code
using all the other existing and popular log APIs - even assuming that
the API satisfied everyone, which it definitely won't, because with
logging there's always people with oddball use cases that exploit
specific behaviors of specific frameworks. If someone has such a plan,
then let's hear it.
On 04/15/2015 10:46 AM, Mark Struberg wrote:
> You can use JUL as ‚interface‘ and delegate to e.g. log4j2 internally. That way you can still use MDC, async appenders and all other neat stuff but you only have an interface where you have a guarantee for not getting into class clash troubles. This is not the case with slf4j. There have been binary incopatible changes between I think it was 1.5 and 1.6 which now create ugly clashes…
>
> There is surely no need to have yet another logging framework in EE…
>
> LieGrue,
> strub
>
>
>> Am 15.04.2015 um 14:50 schrieb Steve Hostettler <steve.hostettler_at_gmail.com>:
>>
>> Hello,
>>
>> Just a short note to confirm that JUL is used in production. We use WebSphere that comes with JUL integration. It is not that bad, as the WAS integration provides UI for changing log level at runtime. Nevertheless, we move now to logback + slf4j because of the implementation (performances, limited customization, no context information). Sure, the API could be improved but in my opinion it is not the biggest problem.
>>
>> Steve
>>
>>
>> On Apr 15, 2015, at 14:22, Yannick Majoros <yannick.majoros_at_gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>> Who says nobody uses JUL in production? I do use it for sure ;-) It's what provided with Glassfish and other AS, and I wouldn't want to use any of the "clogging" tools that break my classloader isolation and introduce memory leaks with no added value.
>>>
>>> But yes, I'm convinced that a logging specification would ease things out. It would just specify some logging interfaces (as other logging abstraction framework tried to do, with no authoritative standard). It could also provide clues of acceptable / required class loading practices, e.g. in a Java EE environment.
>>>
>>> It could also be the right time to improve the APIs. Maybe some common expected logging facilities, too.
>>>
>>> Le mer. 15 avr. 2015 à 14:17, Antonio Goncalves <antonio.goncalves_at_gmail.com> a écrit :
>>> Because nobody uses JUL, the Java EE specs can't use it to define standard loggers. JUL is broken, yes, the JDK folks will fix it (not sure), but in the meantime the JPA spec can't say "to inscrease the JPA logs, just do javax.persistence.logger=DEBUG".
>>>
>>> Antonio
>>>
>>> On Wed, Apr 15, 2015 at 12:29 PM, Marek Potociar <marek.potociar_at_oracle.com> wrote:
>>> I agree that creating new logging spec will not solve any problems with people not using JUL. IMO, JDK folks should find out why people shy away from JUL and then try to fix it.
>>>
>>> Marek
>>>
>>>> On 15 Apr 2015, at 09:18, Romain Manni-Bucau <rmannibucau_at_gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Well, deprecation part doesnt affect the main topic IMO.
>>>>
>>>> Having a standard will not solve the logging aggregation if it is not in the JVM (ie if done at EE level). Just check how EE sub spec are accepted or not. They are often integrated but not the default - for good or bad reason.
>>>>
>>>> The fact there are so much logging frameworks on github doesn't mean a spec would solve it. These projects are sometimes the same (thanks git modularization) and moreover it mixes API and implementation - thing a spec can't change since it would provide API mainly.
>>>>
>>>> My main question is what do you miss or what don't you like in JUL. While you say a standard it doesn't help to go further IMO. Creating a spec or "fixing" JUL is not the same pain at all and I really think JUL is not that far from being usable (in particular since java 8) + it is the standard since it is in the JVM.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Romain Manni-Bucau
>>>> @rmannibucau | Blog | Github | LinkedIn | Tomitriber
>>>>
>>>> 2015-04-15 9:04 GMT+02:00 Antonio Goncalves <antonio.goncalves_at_gmail.com>:
>>>> Yes, that's why I wrote *bits* of JUL will get deprecated (so modularization will be possible).
>>>>
>>>> We write more logs than servlets, we write more logs than restservices, we write more logs than entities... We then aggregate frameworks that use different logging frameworks, we configure them differently, it is a pain to manage... but let's face it, there is no money to be made out of standardizing logs. If you read my first email, you'll undersant that 6 of the top 20 git hub projects are related to logging. So no, there is no standard nor defacto standard !
>>>>
>>>> Antonio
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, Apr 14, 2015 at 9:42 PM, Romain Manni-Bucau <rmannibucau_at_gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> 2015-04-14 21:23 GMT+02:00 Antonio Goncalves <antonio.goncalves_at_gmail.com>:
>>>> Gosh, we've talked about it so many times that it's becoming painful : no body uses JUL in a production environment. Full stop. So, let's do something else. The good thing is that it looks like bits of JULs will get deprecated [1] so it will be easier to get rid of it when modularization.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> That is a wrong free assumption...and moreover not a reason to create another *API*.
>>>>
>>>> Side note: JUL will not get deprecated reading your link, just part property listener part
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Antonio
>>>>
>>>> [1] http://openjdk.java.net/jeps/162
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, Apr 14, 2015 at 9:18 PM, Romain Manni-Bucau <rmannibucau_at_gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> @Antonio: can you point out what you want to standardize? Seems java.util.logging is here and already standard. Only missing thing from my point of view is "application" configuration but not sure it does worth a JSR, do yuo have something else in mind?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Romain Manni-Bucau
>>>> @rmannibucau | Blog | Github | LinkedIn | Tomitriber
>>>>
>>>> 2015-04-14 20:00 GMT+02:00 Antonio Goncalves <antonio.goncalves_at_gmail.com>:
>>>> Hi all,
>>>>
>>>> I've mentioned standardizing logging so many time [1], that I'll make it short this time (BTW, on a day to day basis, as a developper, I still struggle with logs).
>>>>
>>>> But this time I saw this blog, so I couldn't stop from thinking about it : On the top 20 Java GitHub projects, 6 are related to logging [2] I know logging wasn't in the top priorities of the Java EE 8 survey, but I think it's also our duty to acknowledge that, if so many logging framework exists, then, there is a demand.
>>>>
>>>> Antonio
>>>>
>>>> [1] http://antoniogoncalves.org/2012/09/06/i-need-you-for-logging-api-spec-lead/
>>>> [2] http://blog.takipi.com/we-analyzed-60678-libraries-on-github-here-are-the-top-100/
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Antonio Goncalves
>>>> Software architect, Java Champion and Pluralsight author
>>>>
>>>> Web site | Twitter | LinkedIn | Pluralsight | Paris JUG | Devoxx France
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Antonio Goncalves
>>>> Software architect, Java Champion and Pluralsight author
>>>>
>>>> Web site | Twitter | LinkedIn | Pluralsight | Paris JUG | Devoxx France
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Antonio Goncalves
>>>> Software architect, Java Champion and Pluralsight author
>>>>
>>>> Web site | Twitter | LinkedIn | Pluralsight | Paris JUG | Devoxx France
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Antonio Goncalves
>>> Software architect, Java Champion and Pluralsight author
>>>
>>> Web site | Twitter | LinkedIn | Pluralsight | Paris JUG | Devoxx France
>
--
- DML