Details

    • Similar Issues:

      Description

      Java Util Logging does not support varargs so we have to write some ugly
      LOGGER.log(Level.INFO, "{0} : {1}", new Object[] { "first", "last" })

      There's tons of logging framework but slf4j is a widely adopted one, and allows to just write
      LOGGER.info("{0} : {1}", first, last)

      Also, the log output to use 2 lines per log message (one for timestamp, next for message content) is a pain when you want to filter the log. Moving to a single line format would help jenkins support efficiency

        Attachments

          Activity

          Hide
          jglick Jesse Glick added a comment -

          Are the benefits really worth the disruption? I recall a huge hassle in the Maven codebase around a change of logger, with no obvious upside.

          The output format is trivially changed to single-line, as the support-core plugin already does for its own log collection.

          Show
          jglick Jesse Glick added a comment - Are the benefits really worth the disruption? I recall a huge hassle in the Maven codebase around a change of logger, with no obvious upside. The output format is trivially changed to single-line, as the support-core plugin already does for its own log collection.
          Hide
          rsandell rsandell added a comment -

          Personally I find Java Util Logging to be a PITA because of, for example, the above mentioned reason. And would become a much more sane person if I could use slf4j on a daily basis, which I do in some of the plugins that I maintain. But I'm also aware of the extreme overhead that the slf4j to JUL pridge adds, so If we where to change to slf4j (which I hope we do) we need to go all the way and replace the underlying JUL usage as well, perhaps go to log4j.
          Perhaps it could be done in steps and keep the two for a while, but not for long because of the overhead.

          Show
          rsandell rsandell added a comment - Personally I find Java Util Logging to be a PITA because of, for example, the above mentioned reason. And would become a much more sane person if I could use slf4j on a daily basis, which I do in some of the plugins that I maintain. But I'm also aware of the extreme overhead that the slf4j to JUL pridge adds, so If we where to change to slf4j (which I hope we do) we need to go all the way and replace the underlying JUL usage as well, perhaps go to log4j. Perhaps it could be done in steps and keep the two for a while, but not for long because of the overhead.

            People

            • Assignee:
              Unassigned
              Reporter:
              ndeloof Nicolas De Loof
            • Votes:
              1 Vote for this issue
              Watchers:
              5 Start watching this issue

              Dates

              • Created:
                Updated: