> On Oct 16, 2015, at 4:16 AM, Stephen Colebourne <scolebou...@joda.org> wrote:
>
> On 15 October 2015 at 17:31, Daniel Fuchs <daniel.fu...@oracle.com> wrote:
>>> I have a major concern that the class names 'Logger' and 'Level'
>>> duplicate those of java.util.logging. While they are inner classes as
>>> opposed to top level classes, both IntelliJ and Eclipse will find the
>>> inner class and top level class when typing "Logger". This will no
>>> doubt cause many users to import the wrong one. I propose that these
>>> classes are renamed to avoid this problem. The simplest would be to
>>> change them from inner classes to top level classes "System.Logger" ->
>>> "SystemLogger". Alternatively, they could stay as inner classes and be
>>> prefixed "System.Logger" -> "System.SysLogger" or "System.Logger" ->
>>> "System.BasicLogger".
>>
>>
>> After having worked with it for some time I find that using
>> inner interfaces/classes for Logger and Level is not that
>> bad. Certainly better than if it was a top-level class of
>> the same name. It is fortunately rare that you need to use
>> both (the System. and the j.u.l one) in the same class.
>>
>> It's hard to find a compelling new name though :-)
>
> Since I assume the purpose of these new Logger/Level interfaces is
> simplistic and primarily for the JDK's own use, a name that emphasises
> that would seem reasonable, hence BasicLogger/BasicLoggerLevel or
> similar.
I would typically type something like this before fixing the import:
Logger logger = System.Logger(“foo”);
In this case, IDE should suggest the returned type (System.Logger in this case)
as the first one in the import suggested list. It might not be too bad.
FWIW Logger is a simple name that people like :) There are 4 classes named
Logger in the JDK and TestNG has another one (my project happened to have
TestNG library included). I also like Logger than SystemLogger or BasicLogger.
Mandy
