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 the third time: more useful log information ("real" source class and
source method) when desired, e.g. for debugging.
It is the same rational than creating maven-api to not restate the 10
years of discussion leading to that.
I'm not questioning the whole Maven API, only a part that does not seem
to have any added value compared to a standard Java interface that did
not existed 10 years ago.
JUL had been proposed multiple times (…snip…) but core committers
always had been opposed to that and System.Logger has some limitations
Okay, so Log was the compromise between java.util.logging and println. I
understand that. But System.Logger is the same compromise and is as
suitable as Log. Its only drawback compared to Log was to not be
available before Java 9.
Ok, assume we do nothing, we reached that stage sine ~10 years - ok
the way to do it changed a bit but we didn't loose it, this is where
you lost me.
I'm just proposing to replace Log by System.Logger, which provides the
exact same API in only a slightly different way. So:
logger.info("My information");
Become:
logger.log(System.Logger.Leven.INFO, "My information");
That's all. The benefit is the one that I repeated 3 times. Part of my
discussion in previous email was an attempt to justify that the extra
verbosity caused by having to write "System.Logger.Leven.INFO" is not
necessarily a bad thing if it creates an incentive to not invoke "log"
for every line in multi-line messages.
Martin
