Review Request: JDK-8195974: Replace use of java.util.logging

[Tom Schindl]

>From a pure library developer point-of-view this would mean JavaFX would
rely on an implementation detail of the JRE it runs (it's JUnit-Tests).

Does this hold true if I run JavaFX on none Oracle VMs, like Eclipse J9
- not that i plan but well you know ;-)

Tom

On 22.05.18 14:01, Daniel Fuchs wrote:
> Hi Nir,
> 
> By default, the backend of System.Logger is java.util.logging,
> as long as the java.logging module is present and no
> custom LoggerFinder service has been deployed.
> 
> This means that in a usual testing environment, if a library
> emits a log message using the System.Logger API, then a test
> for that library should still be able to observe that message
> using the regular java.util.logging APIs.
> (unless a LoggerFinder service has explicitly been deployed,
> or unless the test runs with a --limit-modules option that
> excludes java.logging).
> 
> I see that you have changed javafx.base tests to stop using
> java.util.logging for verifying the log messages produced
> by javafx.base classes, and I was wondering whether that
> was really necessary?
> I mean - this could be necessary if the test was a whitebox
> test deployed by the test infrastructure in the same module
> than the code under test, and was therefore limited to only
> use those modules required by the module-info of that module,
> but if the test class is deployed on the class path / unnamed
> module then the test class  should still be able to
> configure/access java.logging to verify the behaviour
> of the module under test.
> 
> best regards,
> 
> -- daniel
> 
> 
> On 20/05/2018 13:00, openjfx-dev-request at openjdk.java.net wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> Please review the fix approach for:
>>
>> https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8195974
>>
>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~nlisker/8195974/webrev.00/
>>
>> Many details in the issue.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Nir
>>
>