![]() I cannot agree fully with a just works statement from craigday. I really expect a logging API will be used, not a particular implementation. commons logging, or something else) will work for that. I like slf4j, but any home grown solution (hope not) or other library (e.g. It can easily lead to logs that are erroneous or incorrect at all.Īny external (meaning non-embedded into JRE by default) logging library allows one to isolate logging and to let it be per-application processed. So all JUL logging is hard (at least efficiently) to split between applications. Since JUL is implemented inside JVM core libraries, it's not possible to have it overridden (via classloaders) for each application. And, it's vital to be able to configure logging in per-application basis. There can be a number of applications running in such a server. In particular, a web application that is deployed to, say jetty or tomcat. In most cases one develops an application that is likely to coexist in some application server. My main concern is the ability to isolate logging from other parts of JVM. var/log/upstart/.) that doesn't have a lot of disk space. I've actually had servers fail because stderr gets logged to some location (e.g. #Solving logs how to#I don't know how many times I've had to dig deep into third party libraries bindings to figure out how to get them into my log files. I'd rather just urge you to reconsider your stance on default logger bindings. At least I would have the option of excluding it when I depend on grpc-java. I'd argue you wouldn't be worse of than what we are today. You could in practice provide a default binding to slf4j-simple which would give you the same behavior as today. It's a rather powerful, and intentional approach that has served many OSS projects well for a long time. SLF4J chose to print an error message if logging is not configured instead of silently making assumptions about the target environment. Integration tests might want it to be completely disabled (slf4j-nop), cli tools probably want stderr-based logging (slf4j-simple), server applications want file-based logging (slf4j-over-log4j). Grpc-java is a library, it should not have a say in how logging is performed at runtime. It also has the deficiency that "If no binding is found on the class path, then SLF4J will default to a no-operation implementation" which is pretty bad for our WARNING statements. The number of developers that can configure, log4j, logback, or slf4j is certainly higher than just, but it will also become harder to direct users in how to enable logging when we need it for a report. One developer suggested we use slf4j because it is "java best practices." I think in some part of the Java world it is, but it is unclear whether grpc exists in that part of the world. #Solving logs android#Note that most Android applications don't notice any problem with Log.isLoggable() because while it may return false, if you call the log anyway (say, via Log.v()) apparently it will be logged. VERBOSE for each class you want to log, where the MAGICTAG can be found from DalvikLogging.loggerNameToTag(), but this is so painful it isn't close to practical. You can run a command like adb shell setprop log.tag. This means that even when you configure to log lower levels, they won't actually be logged. Developer phones (like debug builds of Android) will return true, but few develop on such phones. On Android, things are even worse because most phones almost always return false from Log.isLoggable() for lower log levels. More than one project has been annoyed with the logging-by-default, but the number of Java developers who can handle logging.properties seems limited. May need to save this reference Logger log = Logger. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Details
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |