2005/10/12, Noel J. Bergman <noel@devtech.com>:
Niclas Hedhman wrote:

> Once you understand Paul Hammant's argument of "No Logging",
> things get very clear indeed.

This monitor pattern is overengineering IMHO.  Why should I add extra methods whenever I write debug log messages and provide a bridge for known logging frameworks?  And we can say using monitors is implementing AOP almost by hand.

However, as Paul says: "the main point is the proper way to abstract logging
type and destination is to hide all logging implementation behind an
interface."  I agree.  And at this point, since we have a standard, perhaps
it is time to follow Tomcat's lead: ditch all other logging APIs, and use
the standard.  If the standard needs change, that can happen via the JCP.
Log4J and others would still have their place as implementations of the
standard, but as APIs they would go away.

Standard is good, but is java.util.logging de-facto standard really?  There are a lot of projects that use other logging frameworks, and that's why projects like MX4J provides their own layer of logging which is not that pretty.  Commons-logging was a nice try, but ppl doesn't seem to like it due to its hard traceability though I think it is OK because we know what problem is.

It would be really great if the ASF members and committers come to a mutual agreement on which logging framework we will use.

what we call human nature is actually human habit