Mailing-List: contact java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: java-dev@lucene.apache.org
Received-SPF: neutral (athena.apache.org: local policy)
Message-Id: <346DD31B-A72A-42EE-AF2C-2366CEE20BB3@mikemccandless.com>
From: Michael McCandless <lucene@mikemccandless.com>
To: java-dev@lucene.apache.org
In-Reply-To: <49397AFD.5060706@apache.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed; delsp=yes
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v929.2)
Subject: Re: Java logging in Lucene
Date: Fri, 5 Dec 2008 14:06:08 -0500
References: <786fde50812051017k477c6d11tf112678525d9ad84@mail.gmail.com>
 <DB6D1973-53AE-487B-B9CD-CF6AE20056DD@apache.org>
 <49397AFD.5060706@apache.org>


I also feel that the primary usage of the internal messaging in Lucene  
today is debugging, and we don't need a logging framework for that.

Mike

Doug Cutting wrote:

> The infoStream stuff goes back to 1997, before there was log4j or any
> other Java logging framework.
>
> There's never been a big push to add logging to Lucene.  It would  
> add a dependency, and Lucene's jar has always been standalone, which  
> is nice.  Dependencies can conflict.  If Lucene requires one version  
> of a dependency, then it may not work well with code that require a  
> different version of that dependency.
>
> And it hasn't been clear which framework to adopt.  Log4j is the  
> granddaddy, then there's Java logging and commons logging.  Today  
> the preferred framework is probably SLF4J.  Good thing we didn't  
> choose the wrong one years ago!
>
> And how many log entries would folks really want to see per query or  
> document indexed?  In production I don't think most folks want to  
> see more than one entry per query or document indexed.  So finer- 
> grained logging would be for debugging.  For that one can instead  
> use a debugger.  Hence the traditional lack of demand for detailed  
> logging in Lucene.
>
> That's the history as I recall it.  The future is less clear.
>
> Doug
>
> Grant Ingersoll wrote:
>> 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.
>> -Grant
>> 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: java-dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org
>


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org