As an end user of JUL in other projects, let me warn you that you'll miss a lot of abstractions that log4j2 and slf4j provide. :)
On Mon, 13 Aug 2018 at 09:50, Gary Gregory <garydgreg...@gmail.com> wrote: > I like Remko's suggestion, a nice application of the KISS principle ;-) > > Gary > > On Mon, Aug 13, 2018, 07:58 Remko Popma <remko.po...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > If it was up to me I would use JUL in this particular case to keep the > > library free of dependencies. JUL is reasonable since performance is not > an > > issue. > > > > Users that use a logging framework can redirect the JUL logging into > their > > log file with the JUL adapter of their logging library. > > > > But that’s just me. > > > > Remko > > > > (Shameless plug) Every java main() method deserves http://picocli.info > > > > > On Aug 13, 2018, at 21:05, Bruno P. Kinoshita < > > brunodepau...@yahoo.com.br.INVALID> wrote: > > > > > > 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 > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org > > > > > -- Matt Sicker <boa...@gmail.com>
