commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Henri Yandell <>
Subject Re: [general] logging
Date Tue, 31 Aug 2004 01:27:49 GMT

On Thu, 26 Aug 2004, Craig McClanahan wrote:

> You are asking two separate but related quesitons here, so they should
> be addressed separately.
> (1) Should libraries depend on *any* logging library?
> It seems obvious to me that libraries would benefit from having
> logging embedded.  It's not just for the library developers to debug;
> it is also for the library *user*.  Digester is actually a classic
> example of this use case ... debugging your matching rules is MUCH
> easier when you can turn on trace level debugging to see which rules
> are actually getting matched, and what order the rules are being fired
> in.

Just to bring up another thought on this question, what happens in other

Does glibc contain lots of debug statements (I assume to syslog?). Does
Swing contain lots of debug statements? Do libraries contain their own
plugins to the -w flag in Perl? (Might do for all I know).

I'll happily agree that debugging statements in code is very useful
(despite the arguments of the IDE debuggers), but I'm unconvinced that
released stable binaries should contain the debugging etc. It seems
unlikely to be of a lot of use to direct users, and definitely of less use
for third-hand users (think developers of Struts trying to navigate
through Digester debugging statements).


To unsubscribe, e-mail:
For additional commands, e-mail:

View raw message