lucene-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Earwin Burrfoot" <>
Subject Re: Java logging in Lucene
Date Mon, 08 Dec 2008 08:13:17 GMT
The common problem with native logging, log4j and slf4j (logback impl)
is that they are totally unsuitable for actually logging something.
They do good work checking if the logging can be avoided, but use
almost-global locking if you really try to write this line to a file.
My research shows there are no ready-made java logging frameworks that
can be used in high-load production environment.

On Sat, Dec 6, 2008 at 19:52, Shai Erera <> wrote:
> On the performance side, I don't expect to see any different performance
> than what we have today, since checking if infoStream != null should be
> similar to logger.isLoggable (or the equivalent methods from SLF4J).
> I'll look at SLF4J, open an issue and work out a patch.
> On Sat, Dec 6, 2008 at 1:22 PM, Grant Ingersoll <> wrote:
>> On Dec 5, 2008, at 11:36 PM, Shai Erera wrote:
>>> What do you have against JUL? I've used it and in my company (which is
>>> quite a large one btw) we've moved to JUL just because it's so easy to
>>> configure, comes already with the JDK and very intuitive. Perhaps it has
>>> some shortcomings which I'm not aware of, and I hope you can point me at
>>> them.
>> See (or
>> for
>> my rant on it!)  Frankly, I could live a quite happy life if I never had to
>> think about logging frameworks again!
>> As for JUL, the bottom line for me is (and perhaps I'm wrong):  It doesn't
>> play nice with others (show me a system today that uses open source projects
>> which doesn't have at least 2 diff. logging frameworks) and it usually
>> requires coding where other implementations don't.  My impression of JUL is
>> that the designers wanted Log4j, but somehow they felt they had to come up
>> with something "original", and in turn arrived at this thing that is the
>> lowest common denominator.  But, like I said, it's a religious debate, eh?
>> ;-)
>> As for logging, you and Jason make good points.  I guess the first thing
>> to do would be to submit a patch that adds SLF4J instead of infoStream and
>> then we can test performance.  It still amazing, to me, however, that Lucene
>> has made it this long with all but rudimentary logging and only during
>> indexing.
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
>> For additional commands, e-mail:

Kirill Zakharenko/Кирилл Захаренко (
Home / Mobile: +7 (495) 683-567-4 / +7 (903) 5-888-423
ICQ: 104465785
View raw message