[rfc][icedtea-web] refactored logging

[Jiri Vanek]

On 09/12/2013 07:09 PM, Omair Majid wrote:
> Hi Jiri,
>
> On 09/12/2013 06:27 AM, Jiri Vanek wrote:

np:)

>
>>>> Are you saying the old logger is broken? Can you elaborate?
>>>>
>>
>> Not broken, as working, but broken as not doing its job - it was logging
>> really only few, minor exceptions.  User needs to be told about it (or
>> found on his own how to enable it and where to found the logs)
>>
>
> Are those exceptions worth logging? (or even worth stopping and showing
> an error to the user?)

Well thats the question. Which exception/message is which? There was nearly thousand of 
substitutions...  Can you imagine to evaluate each one?

Anyway  - four orriginally logged messages was nearly not worthy tobe logged.... Then the Logger was 
moreover forgotten :(
>
>>>> I am probably missing something, but why isn't ItwLogger a
>>>> java.util.logging.Logger?
>>
>> Why it should be? /me being ironic, but have not found a real  answer to
>> this question
>
> Same reason that it's better to use something that already exists rather
> than re-implementing it: it has been tested more (by more people), it
> has an API that more people are familiar with, and it should be more
> capable and generic than something we specifically develop for icedtea-web.
>
> That last point may be a downside too - the API may not be exactly what
> we need.


TBH - personally I dont like java logging api - it is clumsy, and actually not helping at all.  Also 
I found it not suiting to ITW. And especially to this patch - system logging.

It loosk like wee need to solve the system level implementation asap, otherwise some of mentioned 
questions cannot be answered correctly.
>
> I am looking forward to an updated patch. Please do include unit tests
> too (as much as possible).

Sent. UNluckily without tests. Sorry for that:( I will attach them in later iteration.

Thank you very much for ideas!

Also - as most of this questions/answers are duplicated in reply with patch, I would like to move 
thsi discussion under that sub-thread to not continue with duplicity.


Again, thank you very much for taking care

J.