tinytim-discuss

[tinyTiM-discuss] Issue: Logging

[Lars H. <he...@se...>]

Hi,

I wonder which logging framework we should use for tinyTiM. Maybe we
should use the Java Logging API? It would support the tinyTiM motto
"Just download and use it" without the need to install other jars.

Personally, I like SLF4J <http://www.slf4j.org/> which supports the
Java 1.4 logging framework. But this would require one additional lib
in the classpath.

In conclusion, I think we should stick with the standard Java Logging
API.

Thoughts?

Best regards,
Lars
-- 
http://www.semagia.com

Re: [tinyTiM-discuss] Issue: Logging

[Stefan L. <li...@ap...>]

Hi,

I totally agree, we should keep it as simple as possible without any additional jars.

as a programmer i'm only used to log4j, so i don't know much about the java logging api and its
pros and cons.

stefan


Lars Heuer wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> I wonder which logging framework we should use for tinyTiM. Maybe we
> should use the Java Logging API? It would support the tinyTiM motto
> "Just download and use it" without the need to install other jars.
> 
> Personally, I like SLF4J <http://www.slf4j.org/> which supports the
> Java 1.4 logging framework. But this would require one additional lib
> in the classpath.
> 
> In conclusion, I think we should stick with the standard Java Logging
> API.
> 
> Thoughts?
> 
> Best regards,
> Lars

Re: [tinyTiM-discuss] Issue: Logging

[Lars H. <he...@se...>]

Hi Stefan,

[Using Java Logging]
> I totally agree, we should keep it as simple as possible without any
> additional jars.

> as a programmer i'm only used to log4j, so i don't know much about
> the java logging api and its pros and cons.

Markus Ueberall suggested to move to SLF4J <http://www.slf4j.org/>.
Through this facade nearly all logging frameworks are supported
(commons logging, log4j, ...).

If we'd move to SLF4J the user can use her favourite logging framework
by adding the particular lib to the class path.

AFAIK, tinyTiM itself does not use any logging (yet). The CXTM
serializer uses logging.

If we use SLF4J, we need two small jars (the SLF4J API and one of the
implementations, i.e. the one which uses Java logging).

What do you think?

Best regards,
Lars
-- 
Semagia 
<http://www.semagia.com>

Re: [tinyTiM-discuss] Issue: Logging

[Stefan L. <li...@ap...>]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Hi Lars,

Ich hoffe ich habe mit meiner provokationsmail auf topicmapmail keine zu schlechte laune gemacht,
aber ich seh dich seit wochen überall ordentlich posten und ews scheint nichts zurückzukommen.

zu dem sl4j, klar facaden sind immer gut, hätte nur ein bedenken für die leute die bisher tinyTIM in
Applets benutzt haben, die müssen nur die logging jars mit reinpacken.

kriegen wir es nicht clever hin, das logging pluggable zu halten, so dass man es auch ohne logging
betreiben kann. Wer es mit haben möchte, der kann ja gerne die beiden jars reinpacken

was meinste?


Lars Heuer wrote:
> Hi Stefan,
>
> [Using Java Logging]
>> I totally agree, we should keep it as simple as possible without any
>> additional jars.
>
>> as a programmer i'm only used to log4j, so i don't know much about
>> the java logging api and its pros and cons.
>
> Markus Ueberall suggested to move to SLF4J <http://www.slf4j.org/>.
> Through this facade nearly all logging frameworks are supported
> (commons logging, log4j, ...).
>
> If we'd move to SLF4J the user can use her favourite logging framework
> by adding the particular lib to the class path.
>
> AFAIK, tinyTiM itself does not use any logging (yet). The CXTM
> serializer uses logging.
>
> If we use SLF4J, we need two small jars (the SLF4J API and one of the
> implementations, i.e. the one which uses Java logging).
>
> What do you think?
>
> Best regards,
> Lars

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFIZQgUbsixtqnWg1oRAvTLAJ4i38kWENsZ1gD2iREbGo9Xq5mFnQCgkJzf
NjvO3CIapwUIB6BhBheLxeQ=
=6ngx
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Re: [tinyTiM-discuss] Issue: Logging

[Stefan L. <li...@go...>]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Hi Lars,

Ich hoffe ich habe mit meiner provokationsmail auf topicmapmail keine zu schlechte laune gemacht,
aber ich seh dich seit wochen überall ordentlich posten und ews scheint nichts zurückzukommen.

zu dem sl4j, klar facaden sind immer gut, hätte nur ein bedenken für die leute die bisher tinyTIM in
Applets benutzt haben, die müssen nur die logging jars mit reinpacken.

kriegen wir es nicht clever hin, das logging pluggable zu halten, so dass man es auch ohne logging
betreiben kann. Wer es mit haben möchte, der kann ja gerne die beiden jars reinpacken

was meinste?


Lars Heuer wrote:
> Hi Stefan,
> 
> [Using Java Logging]
>> I totally agree, we should keep it as simple as possible without any
>> additional jars.
> 
>> as a programmer i'm only used to log4j, so i don't know much about
>> the java logging api and its pros and cons.
> 
> Markus Ueberall suggested to move to SLF4J <http://www.slf4j.org/>.
> Through this facade nearly all logging frameworks are supported
> (commons logging, log4j, ...).
> 
> If we'd move to SLF4J the user can use her favourite logging framework
> by adding the particular lib to the class path.
> 
> AFAIK, tinyTiM itself does not use any logging (yet). The CXTM
> serializer uses logging.
> 
> If we use SLF4J, we need two small jars (the SLF4J API and one of the
> implementations, i.e. the one which uses Java logging).
> 
> What do you think?
> 
> Best regards,
> Lars

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFIZQapbsixtqnWg1oRAtP0AJ4hOOe8fTucXpHPHAdOP3gnYRAhegCfS9ad
F+cmrn143fHHzjtHhDgfPGc=
=Qsgr
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Re: [tinyTiM-discuss] Issue: Logging

[Lars H. <he...@se...>]

Hi Stefan,

[...]
> zu dem sl4j, klar facaden sind immer gut, hätte nur ein bedenken für die leute die bisher tinyTIM in
> Applets benutzt haben, die müssen nur die logging jars mit reinpacken.

Right, or we use Utilities like OneJar (not sure if that works since
we need the API and an implementation of SLF4J).

Hmmm... maybe we stick with the java.logging for the 1.5 series and wait for
other opinions and may switch to SLF4J in the 2.0 branch (if TMAPI 2.0
become reality).

BTW, MIO requires SLF4J anyway, but MIO is independent of tinyTiM.

Markus, what do you think?

Best regards,
Lars

-- 
Semagia
<http://www.semagia.com/>

Re: [tinyTiM-discuss] Issue: Logging

[Markus U. <mar...@gm...>]

Hi,

2008/6/28 Lars Heuer <he...@se...>:

> Right, or we use Utilities like OneJar (not sure if that works since
> we need the API and an implementation of SLF4J).


Thanks, I never heard of One-JAR before :)
While it seems more sane than repackaging (sic!) all classes from multiple
JARs (we used to deploy a _huge_ "3rdparty.jar" at work, shudder), however,
I wouldn't do that _per default_. The more "modules"/"engines" you combine,
the higher the possibility that you end up with multiple versions of the
same archive (e.g., log4j). While this may not always be a problem,
sometimes you _need_ to update--and in this situation, it is less obvious
that a certain version of the library in question is contained here or
there. (Of course, you documented it and remembered to use find/grep/...
just to be sure, but there's always Murphy's Law :))

Therefore, I'd suggest that the possibility to use One-JAR is documented in
a README file if somebody really wants to deploy a single JAR, but it's not
used as part of the build process.
(Also, I didn't look whether this approach can be used repeatedly, i.e., if
one would combine tinyTiM with other libraries needed by the main
application.)

Hmmm... maybe we stick with the java.logging for the 1.5 series and wait for
> other opinions and may switch to SLF4J in the 2.0 branch (if TMAPI 2.0
> become reality).
>

Eh... you really want to wait THAT LONG? (Sorry, just kidding >:))
I could live with that, too, of course--though I'd still say it's better to
propagate good libraries/facades early as long as they're rather
lightweight  ;)

Ad astra, Markus

Re: [tinyTiM-discuss] Issue: Logging

[Lars H. <he...@se...>]

Hi Markus,

[...]
>> Hmmm... maybe we stick with the java.logging for the 1.5 series and wait for
>> other opinions and may switch to SLF4J in the 2.0 branch (if TMAPI 2.0
>> become reality).


> I could live with that, too, of course--though I'd still say it's better to
> propagate good libraries/facades early as long as they're rather
> lightweight  ;)

Okay, I think we'll stick for the time being to Java Logging. But you
should be able to redirect that output to SL4J via the
"SLF4JBridgeHandler", see
<http://www.slf4j.org/api/org/slf4j/bridge/SLF4JBridgeHandler.html>
and <http://www.slf4j.org/legacy.html>.

Best regards,
Lars
-- 
Semagia 
<http://www.semagia.com>