Re: [D] [Java] How should we handle "loggers"? (plc4x)

GitHub user sruehl added a comment to the discussion: [Java] How should we handle "loggers"? a3ea768d2f7b35211d553505c9509b2c28a000d2 ([here](https://github.com/apache/plc4x/commit/a3ea768d2f7b35211d553505c9509b2c28a000d2#diff-29f99c8cd536dee245291d0c43c1db428fc4c628e4111670fb10d567c3ce18e1L18

Re: [D] [Java] How should we handle "loggers"? (plc4x)

GitHub user chrisdutz added a comment to the discussion: [Java] How should we handle "loggers"? Well you don't have to write boilerplate anyway as the IDE generates that for me So I do prefer that over having some tool generate stuff magically. GitHub link: https://github.com/apache/plc

Re: [D] [Java] How should we handle "loggers"? (plc4x)

GitHub user sruehl added a comment to the discussion: [Java] How should we handle "loggers"? not having to write Boilerplate is also preventing bugs like writing getters and returning the wrong property... GitHub link: https://github.com/apache/plc4x/discussions/973#discussioncomment-6222620

Re: [D] [Java] How should we handle "loggers"? (plc4x)

GitHub user glcj added a comment to the discussion: [Java] How should we handle "loggers"? Hello, I think we don't use loombok in the project (pom.xml). I think we should not add more libraries than necessary if it can be solved within the JDK tools. My grain of sand GitHub link: https://

Re: [D] [Java] How should we handle "loggers"? (plc4x)

GitHub user foxpluto added a comment to the discussion: [Java] How should we handle "loggers"? @chrisdutz It depends, if Lombok will be used for more feature than the simple logs one, enabling the plugin in the IDE will be worth. Lombok is a great tool for killing the Boiler Plate. GitHu

Re: [D] [Java] How should we handle "loggers"? (plc4x)

GitHub user sruehl added a comment to the discussion: [Java] How should we handle "loggers"? I think in most IDEs it is enabled by default nowadays GitHub link: https://github.com/apache/plc4x/discussions/973#discussioncomment-6218907 This is an automatically sent email for dev@plc4x.ap

Re: [D] [Java] How should we handle "loggers"? (plc4x)

GitHub user chrisdutz added a comment to the discussion: [Java] How should we handle "loggers"? Well admittedly I would be hesitant to use lombok as it requires our users to setup additional plugins in their development environments. GitHub link: https://github.com/apache/plc4x/discussions/9

Re: [D] [Java] How should we handle "loggers"? (plc4x)

GitHub user foxpluto added a comment to the discussion: [Java] How should we handle "loggers"? I would suggest for Java to use the notation `@Log4j2` present in Lombok to decrease the boilerplate an configure the logging notation externally as described here: [@Log (and friends)](https://proj

Re: [D] [Java] How should we handle "loggers"? (plc4x)

GitHub user chrisdutz added a comment to the discussion: [Java] How should we handle "loggers"? Would be awesome, if we could see who voted how :-/ GitHub link: https://github.com/apache/plc4x/discussions/973#discussioncomment-6170967 This is an automatically sent email for dev@plc4x.ap

Re: [D] [Java] How should we handle "loggers"? (plc4x)

Hello, Totally agree on equalizing the use of logs (log, LOG, logger, LOGGER), and so on... If there is a best practice that does not imply adding more libraries to the existing ones, we should evaluate it. Kind regards, El sáb, 3 jun 2023 a las 17:18, Łukasz Dywicki () escribió: > The static

Re: [D] [Java] How should we handle "loggers"? (plc4x)

The static logger declaration is still a thing made by (older/elder? ;)) java developers, mainly because log4j 1.x/commons-logging/jul loggers were advised to be made like that. With switch to slf4j static is no longer mandatory/strongly recommended. Most of code I make myself rely on logger fie

Re: [D] [Java] How should we handle "loggers"? (plc4x)

GitHub user chrisdutz added a comment to the discussion: [Java] How should we handle "loggers"? Good point ... so there's a "almost not noticeable overhead" compared with a lot of new options, right? GitHub link: https://github.com/apache/plc4x/discussions/973#discussioncomment-6069198

Re: [D] [Java] How should we handle "loggers"? (plc4x)

GitHub user sruehl edited a comment on the discussion: [Java] How should we handle "loggers"? With the up-rise of structured loggers, context became more relevant. So with that in mind it is pretty helpful to have loggers enriched and pass it down to the downstream objects which enrich them b

Re: [D] [Java] How should we handle "loggers"? (plc4x)

GitHub user sruehl edited a comment on the discussion: [Java] How should we handle "loggers"? With the up-rise of structured loggers context became more relevant. So with that in mind it is pretty helpful to have loggers enriched and pass it down to the downstream objects which enrich them by

Re: [D] [Java] How should we handle "loggers"? (plc4x)

GitHub user sruehl added a comment to the discussion: [Java] How should we handle "loggers"? With the up-rise of static loggers context became more relevant. So with that in mind it is pretty helpful to have loggers enriched and pass it down to the downstream objects which enrich them by them

Re: [D] [Java] How should we handle "loggers"? (plc4x)

GitHub user chrisdutz added a comment to the discussion: [Java] How should we handle "loggers"? And here ... even the Slf4j folks no longer recommend any general way of doing things: https://www.slf4j.org/faq.html#declared_static I guess in the past, there was a performance reason to to things