Re: [Digi-developer] Second thoughts about internationalized logging.

[<dh...@wo...>]

Dropping the i18n requirement for our logging is ok with me. Can anybody 
convince me otherwise?

I'm also all for this if it means that it'll be that much easier for 
people to use "logger.debug()" instead of System.out.println.

Doug
---
Doug Harris               (202) 473-3118 dh...@wo...




ina...@wo...
Sent by: dig...@li...
12/08/2003 10:22 PM
 


 
        To:     dig...@li...
        cc: 
        Subject:        [Digi-developer] Second thoughts about internationalized logging.




As you remember, in the beginning of the project we decided to 
internationalize our 
log messages. It seemed a good thing to do, back then, as we are aiming on 
a wide 
international audience. 

However, looking at the experience, I am inclined to think that we really 
overdid here 
and made our code much harder to write, less readable. Internationalized 
log messaging 
code is, arguably, way too clumsy and long. 

Compare two approaches for a simple log: 
1) Using i18N: 

//-- initialize logger, once per class: 
private static Logger logger = 
I18NHelper.getKernelLogger(RequestProcessor.class); 

//-- Put the message in the appropriate resource.porperties file: 
RequestProcessor.actionFormName=Action form name is {0} 

//-- Code for each log in the source: 
if (logger.isDebugEnabled()) { 
          logger.l7dlog(Level.DEBUG, "RequestProcessor.actionFormName", 
new Object[] {newMapping.getAttribute()}, null); 
} 


2) Using simple logging: 

//-- initialize logger, once per class: 
private static Logger log = Logger.getLogger(RequestProcessor.class); 

//-- Code for each log in the source: 
log.debug( "Action form name is " + newMapping.getAttribute()); 


---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 


The second approach is, obviously, simpler, faster and code is much more 
readable. 
Do we loose much by not internationalizing logs? Not really. There are 
open-source projects 
with far wider outreach and audience than Digi can realistically get in 
the nearest future 
(e.g. Hibernate) that do not internationalize their logs. 

We have our javadocs only in English, our mailing list is in English - 
pretty much all 
the resources and documentation are in English, so spending so much effort 
on 
internationalizing just logs - does not really seem reasonable, and I am 
beginning 
to think we are really doing an overkill here, which is worse - making our 
code far less 
readable and that is way worse than having logs only in English. 

I propose we begin using simple approach to logging with neat and clear 
log.debug(), log.info(), log.error(), log.fatal() etc. methods. 

It does not mean anybody needs to spend precious time, now, and change the 
existing 
code - switch to the simpler logging, but I think we can use the 
alternative approach for 
the future development. 

thank you 

Irakli