Just to be clear, I certainly sympathize with Tim and support getting
rid of implementation debug logging in the long term.
Maybe the way to compromise/phrase it is agree that when a package is
done, we will pitch all the logging? I can see why having logging
around while things are being developed is helpful, and committing to
SVN is ok since we want people to commit "early and often, and having to
pull out logging would be a disincentive for someone working on
something big.
Does this help?
"At the end we are going to dump any logging debris that have any
performance or other burden like increase in dependencies"
geir
Geir Magnusson Jr wrote:
Tim Ellison wrote:
Geir Magnusson Jr wrote:
Seems like there is an important issue here, but the discussion can't
seem to escape out of the thicket of the example.
1) Should we allow any logging from within the classlibrary?
Just in case there was any doubt from my earlier postings...
I think we should not be explicitly logging debug info as part of our
class library implementation.
In any form?
2) How should we do it?
There are a bunch of ways for the second question... using j.u.l, using
IOC and injecting our own logging target to reduce dependencies and
make people think before logging, using aspects?
Both j.u.l and IoC would require code in the implementation to perform
the logging actions (or check the guard). Putting this logic throughout
the class library will IMHO result in module coupling, code bloat and
overall performance degradation (or no logging!).
Right - that's why I was thinking of the latter. Something that would
have no runtime overhead, yet allow us to capture more information other
than just execution path and stack values :)
Adding logging statements is expecting the class library developer to
decide /a priori/ what debug|trace info is useful to the person trying
to resolve a problem. Existing debug|trace tools work with the runtime
to figure out the pertinent information as you are interested in it.
(The only caveat being 'flight data recorder' type trace where the trace
points are typically very low overhead and always on).
Comments? We probably should try to get to a conclusion in general...
The logging info being proposed is developer-oriented. I hope that
people are not expecting our users to understand our developer trace
info -- we, as developers, have better tools than printf to figure out
what is happening.
I have to admit that I don't agree w/ "better" as a universally general
statement, as debug statements can include information provided by the
developer not immediately obvious.
Is there some kind of aspect framework we can use? Then for
develeopers, they have to implicitly do something to get the stuff to
come out, it's not a runtime cost for anyone else, and the stuff stays
in the codebase for use later?
geir
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Terms of use : http://incubator.apache.org/harmony/mailing.html
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Terms of use : http://incubator.apache.org/harmony/mailing.html
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
