I was thinking more about using that as an argument for using a logging framework, but I think you are right. Probably slf4j/commons-logging + some default binding, then allowing users to change the implementation.
Perhaps slf4j + log4j? Bruno ________________________________ From: Remko Popma <remko.po...@gmail.com> To: Commons Developers List <dev@commons.apache.org> Sent: Monday, 13 August 2018 11:55 PM Subject: Re: [imaging] IMAGING-154 remove Debug class For new projects I would really avoid using Commons Logging. Ceki had a point when he created SLF4J. The projects you mentioned that have a dependency on Commons Logging were started before SLF4J (and perhaps JUL) were created, I believe. (Shameless plug) Every java main() method deserves http://picocli.info > On Aug 13, 2018, at 18:22, Bruno P. Kinoshita > <brunodepau...@yahoo.com.br.INVALID> wrote: > > Right now that's where I am standing too. If adding a dependency to log4j is > a no-no, then I'd probably check if jul would be OK, or otherwise maybe > import just Log4J's LowLevelLogUtil into the project would work? > > > Commons DBCP, Commons Configuration, Commons Beanutils, Commons JEXL, and > Commons Validator. All of these have a compile dependency to Commons Logging. > So it wouldn't be creating a new precedent. > > > Commons Pool and Commons Compress have some optional dependencies, but none > for logging... maybe an optional dependency, with disabling the logging by > default **could** work? > > > Cheers > Bruno > > > ________________________________ > From: Remko Popma <remko.po...@gmail.com> > To: Commons Developers List <dev@commons.apache.org> > Sent: Monday, 13 August 2018 9:50 AM > Subject: Re: [imaging] IMAGING-154 remove Debug class > > > > If you want to avoid a dependency I would not create a custom logging > abstraction but just use JUL. Most logging libraries have JUL adapters so > clients can do the bridging on their side. > > (Shameless plug) Every java main() method deserves http://picocli.info > >> On Aug 13, 2018, at 0:17, Matt Sicker <boa...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> What I've seen done when trying to avoid a logging API dependency is to >> create a minimal logging API purely for framework use. This can have a >> default System.err style implementation, but the idea is to make it easy >> (and performant hopefully) to bridge into the end user's choice of >> framework and configuration without actually requiring a real logging >> framework (at least until you want to use it in production). While it seems >> overkill, the problem is that neither JUL nor System.err are sufficient for >> logging. Even a simple API like Android's logging API can be good enough to >> abstract it in a small library. >> >> For a look at the very simplest route, you can see how Log4j2 handles >> logging before any logging classes have been initialized. It's basically a >> configurable wrapper around System.err: >> https://github.com/apache/logging-log4j2/blob/master/log4j-api/src/main/java/org/apache/logging/log4j/util/LowLevelLogUtil.java >> >> >>> On Sun, 12 Aug 2018 at 09:12, Gary Gregory <garydgreg...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> You could also log to a pluggable print stream which could be sys err by >>> default. Kind of like what JDBC allows. My bias is to Log4j 2 as well :-) >>> >>> Gary >>> >>>> On Sun, Aug 12, 2018, 08:00 Remko Popma <remko.po...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> There’s a couple of considerations about doing logging in a library, but >>>> I’ll just mention a few: >>>> >>>> * dependencies >>>> * performance >>>> * ease of use >>>> >>>> * Dependencies* >>>> Will the library be less attractive to users if it requires an external >>>> dependency? Then don’t introduce one (so: use system err or JUL). On the >>>> other hand, if the vast majority of usages is in a context with many >>> other >>>> external libraries (like in a web container) you have more freedom. >>>> >>>> *Performance* >>>> Please take a look at the log4j 2 performance page ( >>>> https://logging.apache.org/log4j/2.x/performance.html#tradeoffs). >>> Console >>>> logging is 50x (yes fifty times) slower than file logging. >>>> That’s a strong argument against system err logging. I’m not a fan of >>> JUL, >>>> but if you need to avoid dependencies you’re better off using JUL, that’s >>>> only 5x slower than log4j. Also depends on how much logging you expect to >>>> do in the worst case. >>>> >>>> *Ease of use* >>>> I’m biased and would say that Log4j 2 has the nicest and richest API. >>>> Console logging (System.err.printf) probably has the poorest API. Other >>>> libraries sit in the middle. >>>> >>>> *Final note* >>>> I would never log to System out, always use system err instead. This >>>> allows programs using your library to pipe output to other programs >>> without >>>> their output getting mixed with your library’s diagnostic output. >>>> >>>> Hope this helps, >>>> >>>> Remko >>>> >>>> (Shameless plug) Every java main() method deserves http://picocli.info >>>> >>>>> On Aug 12, 2018, at 21:21, Gilles <gil...@harfang.homelinux.org> >>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Hello Bruno. >>>>> >>>>>> On Sun, 12 Aug 2018 08:56:37 +0000 (UTC), Bruno P. Kinoshita wrote: >>>>>> Hi all, >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> I commented on IMAGING-154, but copying the last comment here as it >>>>>> contains the approach I would like to follow to fix the last change in >>>>>> the project blocking >>>>>> a 1.0 release: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> --- >>>>>> >>>>>> So went ahead to re-design the Debug class, in a way users could >>>>>> still enable/disable debugging, and also use a PrintStream so that >>>>>> other thing rather than System.out could be used. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Then, realized removing System.out was the natural next step. But >>>>>> alas, the library uses System.out for debugging, but sometimes it uses >>>>>> it for writing to System.out in a "verbose mode". What is more >>>>>> complicated, is that sometimes classes methods like `toString()` are >>>>>> calling debug methods that receive a PrintStream already. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> So I spent some more time quickly comparing what other libraries I've >>>>>> seen being used / or used for image processing: >>>>>> >>>> >>> https://kinoshita.eti.br/2018/08/12/use-of-logging-in-java-image-processing-libraries/ >>>> . >>>>>> Turns out only very low level libraries, such as the JNI bridge for >>>>>> OpenCV, im4java, and Java's ImageIO can do with just throwing >>>>>> Exception's. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> All other libraries have one way or another of logging. Be it with >>>>>> JUL, SLF4J, custom loggers, or with the ol' System.out/err. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> My preferred compromise for this ticket was to keep Debug, making >>>>>> System.out possible but optional, and mark the class internal only. >>>>>> Now my preferred solution is to keep the Debug internal, but add a >>>>>> logger to it. And then also add logging to replace where System.out is >>>>>> used for the "verbose" mode. >>>>>> --- >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Any thoughts? Objections? If none, I will try to work on this issue >>>>>> next weekend, making the Debug class internal only, and replacing >>>>>> System.out by a logging utility. After that, we should be good to >>>>>> start preparing the vote for 1.0. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> * I know it's hard to get a consensus on having logging in Commons >>>>>> components, as we have normally low level libraries, where using >>>>>> logging is not always practical. >>>>> >>>>> There are Log4j2 experts reading here. It would be interesting >>>>> to hear them about what is practical or not. There are several >>>>> aspects to "practical": simplicity, flexibility, compatibility, >>>>> performance, ... >>>>> How does Log4j2 fare in these areas? >>>>> Is there a known (through experience) limit in where it should >>>>> be used? >>>>> >>>>>> But I would now argue that Java own >>>>>> ImageIO is low level. But ImageJ2, Processing, OpenJPEG, and Commons >>>>>> Imaging are located at a higher level, some times even using it for >>>>>> basic image handling/parsing/reading. >>>>> >>>>> As with many discussions on this list, conflicting arguments occur >>>>> because people lack common (!) definitions. >>>>> So one goes: "You cannot do <something> in a low-level component" >>>>> but does not define "low-level"... >>>>> >>>>>> * Feel free to cast a counter-argument for it, but please think >>>>>> whether you'd still be -0, +0 for this change. We have delayed 1.0 for >>>>>> a while, so if you have a strong opinion on not adding a logger, >>>>>> please provide an alternative for IMAGING-154. >>>>> >>>>>> Otherwise we may fail >>>>>> to prepare a 1.0 release yet again, and then somebody else may have to >>>>>> work on it in a few months/years... >>>>> >>>>> We are there because the project is too rigid about itself as >>>>> a whole (cf. for example the [RNG] thread about BC). >>>>> IMHO, it's not the always least common denominator that is the >>>>> best decision... >>>>> As you noticed, components most easily stall in their development >>>>> for lack of proper review, or risk acceptance (i.e. assume that >>>>> those who are closer to the code (at a given time) probably know >>>>> best... :-/ >>>>> >>>>> My opinion is that we can take the risk to introduce logging, and >>>>> if people complain somehow, take it back later. >>>>> >>>>>> one possible compromise for this, >>>>>> might be i) make Debug internal, >>>>> >>>>> +1 >>>>> >>>>> [Hmm... Does "internal" mean that minor release can break BC >>>>> on such a class?] >>>>> >>>>>> ii) remove all System.out calls, >>>>> >>>>> +1 or >>>>> -1 >>>>> >>>>> [Depends on what "low-level" means here. "stdout"/"stderr" is >>>>> indeed used in low-level utilities but is the intent the same >>>>> here?] >>>>> >>>>>> which means removing the verbose flags, the checks, and calls to >>>>>> System.out in there. >>>>> >>>>> It would be a loss of potentially useful information (e.g. for >>>>> debugging). >>>>> >>>>> Regards, >>>>> Gilles >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Thanks! >>>>>> Bruno >>>>>> >>>>>> ________________________________ >>>>>> From: Bruno P. Kinoshita <brunodepau...@yahoo.com.br.INVALID> >>>>>> To: Commons Developers List <dev@commons.apache.org> >>>>>> Sent: Tuesday, 6 February 2018 11:30 PM >>>>>> Subject: Re: [imaging] IMAGING-154 remove Debug class >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Hi sebb, >>>>>> >>>>>>> Another aspect of debugging is ensuring that methods are small and >>>>>> >>>>>>> easily tested independently. >>>>>>> However this is difficult to do, and care must be taken to ensure >>> that >>>>>>> the public API is not unnecessarily extended.. >>>>>> >>>>>> A very good point. >>>>>> >>>>>> The parsers in commons-imaging expose some #dump... methods >>>>>> ( >>>> >>> https://github.com/apache/commons-imaging/blob/7e7f96857df999175bb614732e13272a82f7962a/src/main/java/org/apache/commons/imaging/ImageParser.java#L794 >>>> ). >>>>>> >>>>>> While I can see that parsers may need to dump the data they are >>>>>> holding in some structured way for inspecting, reporting, serializing, >>>>>> etc, it looks like some other classes were affected by it too. For >>>>>> example... >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> A JPEG Segment has a #dump() method >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>> https://github.com/apache/commons-imaging/blob/7e7f96857df999175bb614732e13272a82f7962a/src/main/java/org/apache/commons/imaging/formats/jpeg/segments/Segment.java#L34 >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> which gets defined in each subclass of Segment. It can be confusing >>>>>> to have a method such as #dump() in a Segment, from the point of view >>>>>> of someone writing a photo editor for example. The user could use that >>>>>> to pass his/her own logger's PrintWriter, which would make removing or >>>>>> changing logging in the future in commons-imaging. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> If we keep the Debug class, and make it internal, there would still >>>>>> be these methods to take care. And there are some methods where users >>>>>> can provide a PrintWriter, while others instead use System.out >>>>>> (e.g. >>>> >>> https://github.com/apache/commons-imaging/blob/7e7f96857df999175bb614732e13272a82f7962a/src/main/java/org/apache/commons/imaging/FormatCompliance.java#L70 >>>> ). >>>>>> >>>>>> Cheers >>>>>> Bruno >>>>>> >>>>>> ________________________________ >>>>>> From: sebb <seb...@gmail.com> >>>>>> To: Commons Developers List <dev@commons.apache.org>; Bruno P. >>>>>> Kinoshita <brunodepau...@yahoo.com.br> >>>>>> Sent: Tuesday, 6 February 2018 11:06 PM >>>>>> Subject: Re: [imaging] IMAGING-154 remove Debug class >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On 6 February 2018 at 09:52, Bruno P. Kinoshita >>>>>> <brunodepau...@yahoo.com.br.invalid> wrote: >>>>>>> Hi Jorg, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I'd be fine with that solution too. I think this one would cause the >>>> smaller change to the code as is. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I believe my preference is still to remove the Debug class. But >>>> between logging and making Debug internal only, I'd choose making it >>>> internal. >>>>>> >>>>>> +1 >>>>>> >>>>>> I think making it internal means it can still be dropped later. >>>>>> >>>>>>> Looking forward to hearing what others think about these options. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Another aspect of debugging is ensuring that methods are small and >>>>>> easily tested independently. >>>>>> However this is difficult to do, and care must be taken to ensure that >>>>>> the public API is not unnecessarily extended.. >>>>>> >>>>>>> Thanks >>>>>>> Bruno >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> ________________________________ >>>>>>> From: Jörg Schaible <joerg.schai...@bpm-inspire.com> >>>>>>> To: dev@commons.apache.org >>>>>>> Sent: Tuesday, 6 February 2018 9:24 PM >>>>>>> Subject: Re: [imaging] IMAGING-154 remove Debug class >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Hi Bruno, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> if it might also be helpful to our users, why not keep and provide >>> it. >>>> As >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I understand it, the Debug class is a tool helping in development to >>>>>>> >>>>>>> analyze some behavior. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Nothing stops us from declaring this class internal (we might even >>> put >>>> it >>>>>>> >>>>>>> into a package "internal" or "debug") that might be changed without >>>>>>> >>>>>>> further comment. Nobody may rely on it in production code, but during >>>>>>> >>>>>>> development it might be helpful. With such an approach we might not >>>> have >>>>>>> >>>>>>> a need to find a better interface to provide this functionality. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Just my 2¢, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Jörg >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Am Mon, 05 Feb 2018 12:20:58 +0000 schrieb Bruno P. Kinoshita: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Hello, >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> If memory serves me well, some time ago we had a discussion around >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> sanselan & commons-imaging 1.0. One of the issues with >>> commons-imaging >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> 1.0 was the Debug class. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IMAGING-154 >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I finished the pull request, but Gilles raised an important point, >>>> about >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> discussing other alternatives first. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Initially I am against logging in low level libraries, especially >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> commons components. But some time ago I had to debug TIFF issues in >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> commons-imaging, and having the dump methods was a tremendous help. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The issue is that some imaging algorithms/processing have a lot of >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> variables that can be altered. And keeping an eye on all of them in >>>> the >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> debugger can be quite hard - though not impossible. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> So all in all, now I am more confident to proceed without the Debug >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> class. But some users could have a hard time investigating possible >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> issues in the library without seeing what's going on within the >>>> library. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> IMO, that could be solved with the logging/dump features... or >>>> through a >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> better design, especially around exception handling/throwing. The >>>> latter >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> is my preferred approach. Instead of logging, I prefer - whenever >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> possible - that low level libraries throw exceptions and let me >>> handle >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> the logging. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> So, any thoughts? :) I'm +1 to remove the Debug class, and +0 to a >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> logging added to commons-imaging. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Bruno >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org >>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org >>>>> >>>> >>> >> >> >> -- >> Matt Sicker <boa...@gmail.com> > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
