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 <
martin.desruisse...@geomatys.com> wrote:
> 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
>
>
