Le lun. 4 mars 2024 à 10:49, Martin Desruisseaux <
martin.desruisse...@geomatys.com> a écrit :
> Note: this logging issue is not very important. If there is such
> resistance against it, I will not insist.
>
>
> Le 2024-03-04 à 08 h 35, Romain Manni-Bucau a écrit :
>
> > Please read
> >
>
Note: this logging issue is not very important. If there is such
resistance against it, I will not insist.
Le 2024-03-04 à 08 h 35, Romain Manni-Bucau a écrit :
Please read
https://docs.oracle.com/javase%2F9%2Fdocs%2Fapi%2F%2F/java/lang/System.LoggerFinder.html
I have already read that. The
Martin
Please read
https://docs.oracle.com/javase%2F9%2Fdocs%2Fapi%2F%2F/java/lang/System.LoggerFinder.html
And "For the third time" we already have it
Also please stop this kind of statement "But System.Logger is the same
compromise and is as suitable as Log." this is nonsense to me since
Le 2024-03-04 à 00 h 31, Pavel Horal a écrit :
isn't System.Logger mainly for JDK internals? I always thought that
using it is in a similar ballpark as using java.util.Optional in
method arguments (i.e. „please don’t“).
System.Logger was needed by JDK internal, e.g. because of bootstrapping
Hi,
sorry to jump into a conversation, but isn't System.Logger mainly for JDK
internals? I always thought that using it is in a similar ballpark as using
java.util.Optional in method arguments (i.e. „please don’t“).
Pavel
On Sun, 3 Mar 2024 at 23:54, Martin Desruisseaux <
Le 2024-03-03 à 22 h 53, Romain Manni-Bucau a écrit :
It is expected to use System so the logger finder. if it is not the
case you broke the contract of this API.
Can you point to the contract saying that?
As a matter of fact it is current state so not sure what you want to
enable.
For
Le dim. 3 mars 2024 à 22:28, Martin Desruisseaux <
martin.desruisse...@geomatys.com> a écrit :
> Le 2024-03-03 à 20 h 38, Romain Manni-Bucau a écrit :
>
> > the idea of maven-api was to abstract anything from the implementation
> > to be able to change
> A standard Java interface is as good as a
Le 2024-03-03 à 20 h 38, Romain Manni-Bucau a écrit :
the idea of maven-api was to abstract anything from the implementation
to be able to change
A standard Java interface is as good as a Maven interface for that
purpose if they define equivalent methods, which is the case of
System.Logger
Le dim. 3 mars 2024 à 19:18, Martin Desruisseaux <
martin.desruisse...@geomatys.com> a écrit :
> Le 2024-03-03 à 18 h 48, Romain Manni-Bucau a écrit :
>
> >> (snip) Nothing force us to use System.getLogger() for getting an
> >> instance of that interface. (snip)
> >>
> > Yes but you make
Le 2024-03-03 à 18 h 48, Romain Manni-Bucau a écrit :
(snip) Nothing force us to use System.getLogger() for getting an
instance of that interface. (snip)
Yes but you make something well specified misbehaving so while
technically true I think it would deserve us on the long run.
I do not
Le dim. 3 mars 2024 à 17:50, Martin Desruisseaux <
martin.desruisse...@geomatys.com> a écrit :
> Hello Romain
>
> Le 2024-03-03 à 17 h 02, Romain Manni-Bucau a écrit :
>
> > SystemLogger has the ServiceLoader "pick random first" implementation
> > which is not what we want
> >
> You are
Hello Romain
Le 2024-03-03 à 17 h 02, Romain Manni-Bucau a écrit :
SystemLogger has the ServiceLoader "pick random first" implementation
which is not what we want
You are describing the behavior of the System.getLogger() method. I was
talking about the use of the System.Logger interface.
Hi,
I'm not sure I got what we would gain but here is my view on this topic:
* SystemLogger has the ServiceLoader "pick random first" implementation
which is not what we want I think and the API stays low level,
* If we want to drop Log we would rather go to JUL, which stays more
powerful in
13 matches
Mail list logo
