Delivered-To: cgu@qos.ch
Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2001 14:21:17 +0200
From: Axel Boness <Axel.Boness@Akazi.com>
Reply-To: Axel.Boness@Akazi.com
Organization: Akazi Technologies S.A.
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.75 [en] (Windows NT 5.0; U)
X-Accept-Language: en
To: java-logging-input@eng.sun.com
Subject: JSR47

As a java software developer I'm deeply concerned in the process of
logging. That is from my point of view one of the only way to diagnose
an on-site running application.

I had a deep look on http://jakarta.apache.org/log4j/docs/critique.html

Even, if not using Log4j for reasons far enough from this mail, I do
agree on most of the arguments shown on this page.

I urge you not to use levels as FINE, FINER, FINEST. Even if it seems a
good idea, it becomes a nightmare for someone to decide what the level
of a log should be.

The proposition FATAL, ERROR, WARN, INFO and DEBUG is enough. We do use
those levels, and only those levels.

Logging to only one logger at a time has announced in this page, is not
enough. We do use several loggers at a time, for different purpose.
These feature is a must have.

The error handling feature of log4j is consistent : a logger must me
silent !

Logging is one of the toughest algorithmic subject with error handling
and software configuration in nowadays software.

I feel that trying to get THE API for logging is some kind of nonsense.
Just look what you may find, each has a distinct standard way
WindowsXXX, Unix, VMS, ...

Good tools are more important that bad API. So I do say : "leave logging
in the wild, focus on other important subjects that are not to bring
religious war".

Axel Boness
System Archictect
Akazi Technologies