lucene-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Grant Ingersoll <>
Subject Re: Java logging in Lucene
Date Fri, 05 Dec 2008 18:29:36 GMT
I think the main motivation has always been to have no dependencies in  
the core so as to keep it as fast and lightweight as possible.  Then,  
of course, there is always the usual religious wars around which  
logging framework to use, not to mention the nightmare that is trying  
to manage multiple logging frameworks across several projects that are  
being integrated.  Then, of course, there is the question of how  
useful any core Lucene logs would be to users writing search  
applications.  For the most part, my experience has been that I want  
logging to tell me when a document was added, when searches occur,  
etc. but I don't necessarily need to know things like the fact that  
Lucene is now entering the analysis phase of Document inversion.  And,  
for all these needs, I can just as well do that logging in the  
application and not in Lucene.

All that is not to say we couldn't add in logging, I'm just suggesting  
reasons I can think of for why it has not been added to date and why I  
am not sure it needs to be there going forward.  I believe various  
other people have contributed reasons in the past.  I seem to recall  
Doug spelling some out, but don't have the thread handy.


On Dec 5, 2008, at 1:17 PM, Shai Erera wrote:

> Hi
> I was wondering why doesn't the Lucene code uses Java logging,  
> instead of the infoStream set in IndexWriter? Today, if I want to  
> enable tracing of Lucene code, the only thing I can do is set an  
> infoStream, but then I get many many messages. Moreoever, those  
> messages seem to cover indexing code only.
> I hope to get some opinions on the use of Java logging instead of  
> infoStream, and hopefully to start addind logging messages in other  
> places in the code (like during search, query parsing etc.)
> I feel that this is an approach the community has to decide on  
> before we start adding messages to the code. Using Java logging can  
> greatly benefit tracing of indexing applications who use Lucene. If  
> the vote is +1 for using Java logging, we can start by deprecating  
> infoStream (in 2.9, remove in 3.0) and use logging instead.
> What do you think?
> Shai

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

View raw message