commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Ralph Goers <>
Subject Re: [Configuration] experimental branch uses java.util.logging?
Date Fri, 19 Jun 2009 13:36:38 GMT

On Jun 19, 2009, at 1:53 AM, Emmanuel Bourg wrote:

> ralph.goers a écrit :
>>> The overhead is acceptable for the limited logging requirements of  
>>> Commons
>>> Configuration.
>> 1. You have determined this how?
>> 2. Commons Configuration needs more logging added. I have had  
>> difficulty
>> identifying problems because not enough logging is being done. I  
>> will be
>> adding this.
> 1. Commons Configuration logs errors mainly when a configuration is  
> loaded or saved. These errors are rare and when they happen, the few  
> nanoseconds you might lose with the logging statements are  
> insignificant compared to the time spent in the IO operations.
> 2. I just hope you won't add traces to every method calls.

No, I will not go that far.

>> But not for mine. I do plan on reverting configuration2 back to  
>> commons
>> logging when I get some time. I'd prefer SLF4J but this list has  
>> indicated
>> that commons logging is the preferred logging framework to use for  
>> commons
>> projects.
> Please don't forget to demonstrate that JUL is unsuitable first.
1. This discussion has already proven that to me. But then again, I  
knew that before the discussion started.
2. In all the various logging discussions that have taken place on  
this list in the last few months, many initiated by me, the concensus  
seems to be that commons logging is the logging framework that should  
be used by commons projects. Although not my preference I will abide  
by that. Then I will spend some time on commons logging when I have  
time to see what, if any, improvements can be made.


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

View raw message