polygene-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From James Carman <ja...@carmanconsulting.com>
Subject Re: Discuss; SLF4J in Core
Date Tue, 31 Mar 2015 08:18:28 GMT
You guys know the codebase far better than I do, of course, so I'm
sure it makes perfect sense in that context.  From an outsider's
perspective, it just seems silly to put a logging facade over a
logging facade, though.  If you already have a service loader (the JDK
already has one) facility and you're cool with using that, then I
suppose that will work.  What do you do when there is no logger?  Use
a default no-op implementation or something?


On Tue, Mar 31, 2015 at 1:04 AM, Niclas Hedhman <niclas@hedhman.org> wrote:
> Well, Qi4j prides itself (kind of) to have no dependencies in core.
> Metrics, Serialization, Indexing, Storage and even Migration are
> implemented through the SPI mechanism. The last dependency (ASM) should
> likewise be extracted, so that Android can be supported, and possibly need
> different code generators for Java 7, 8 and 9.
>
> The pattern that if there is an implementation found through Qi4j's Service
> mechanism, it is used. For Metrics that is optional, which I think Logging
> also should be.
>
> As to "controversial" ; Yes, I agree. But I think it is similar in nature
> to "getters", i.e. a deeply held religious belief, that isn't substantiated
> by reasoning.
>
> For all you ASF buffs,
> In Qi4j, a "getter/setter" is not a "property". When this was raised, it
> was also "controversial", but the model of
>
>    Property<String> name();
>
> is in our opinion "obvious" after the discovery. With "Property", we can
> control whethr mutability "works" in the set() method, it can have tags and
> other meta information, it can be passed as a "function" to be set and a
> lot more.
>
> I think that after the initial "stigma" and a decent solution found,
> logging will also be non-controversial.
>
>
> Cheers
> Niclas
>
>
> On Tue, Mar 31, 2015 at 6:43 AM, James Carman <james@carmanconsulting.com>
> wrote:
>
>> I would stick with slf4j since it's designed for this sort of thing, and
>> that's where most folks are these days.
>>
>> On Monday, March 30, 2015, Niclas Hedhman <niclas@hedhman.org> wrote:
>>
>> > Although codebase is not imported to Apache Zest yet, I am looking at
>> > removing the SLF4J dependency in Core.
>> >
>> >
>> > As the first step, I want to remove the current logging that is in Core,
>> > simply because it is scattered and primarily in place to support a couple
>> > of development efforts in the past and not really useful to the user of
>> > QI4j.
>> >
>> > Second step is to provide a similar extension mechanism for Logging as
>> for
>> > Metrics, and if people plugin a Logging provider, then that will be used.
>> >
>> > Third step is to migrate the LIbraries and other Extensions to use this
>> SPI
>> > mechanism.
>> >
>> > Fourth step; Look into "useful" logging from Core, that make sense to
>> > users.
>> >
>> > WDYT?
>> >
>> >
>> > Cheers
>> > --
>> > Niclas Hedhman, Software Developer
>> > http://www.qi4j.org - New Energy for Java
>> >
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Niclas Hedhman, Software Developer
> http://www.qi4j.org - New Energy for Java

Mime
View raw message