Martin Please read https://docs.oracle.com/javase%2F9%2Fdocs%2Fapi%2F%2F/java/lang/System.LoggerFinder.html
And "For the third time" we already have it.... Also please stop this kind of statement "But System.Logger is the same compromise and is as suitable as Log." this is nonsense to me since it is strictly equivalent in terms of API but not in terms of maven guarantee and stability for plugin writers which is the only point to have our log API and not reuse JUL. Similarly "However, there is nothing in System.Logger, System.getLogger() or System.LoggerFinder javadoc saying that we should not use it." - cause you don't care about the issue maven api solves for now. So there is no real way we do it, as I repeated 3 times, cause the key is not the API. Also "Maven, which need more than println but not as much as a real logging framework" is wrong, this is only the local case for a subset of plugins, anything else needs a real logging system and mvnd too. Think you generalized too much compiler work you did but it is not the maven generic case. @Pavel: exactly cause the API is only a part of the solution, the lifecycle is another one and there System.Logger fills another gap the JVM had and was using System.out before as explained in the first responses. Romain Manni-Bucau @rmannibucau <https://twitter.com/rmannibucau> | Blog <https://rmannibucau.metawerx.net/> | Old Blog <http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com> | Github <https://github.com/rmannibucau> | LinkedIn <https://www.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau> | Book <https://www.packtpub.com/application-development/java-ee-8-high-performance> Le lun. 4 mars 2024 à 01:13, Martin Desruisseaux < martin.desruisse...@geomatys.com> a écrit : > Le 2024-03-04 à 00 h 31, Pavel Horal a écrit : > > > > isn't System.Logger mainly for JDK internals? I always thought that > > using it is in a similar ballpark as using java.util.Optional in > > method arguments (i.e. „please don’t“). > > > System.Logger was needed by JDK internal, e.g. because of bootstrapping > issues. Another reason is that java.logging is a separated JPMS module, > so the java.base module cannot depend on it. However, there is nothing > in System.Logger, System.getLogger() or System.LoggerFinder javadoc > saying that we should not use it. If it was the case, I think that > Oracle would not have placed those interfaces in public API, and > certainly not in the java.lang package which is implicitly imported by > everyone. > > System.Logger can be used by applications that want to keep the > java.logging module optional. It is also a good fit for applications, > like Maven, which need more than println but not as much as a real > logging framework. > > Martin > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org > >
