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

[Nir Lisker]

Tom, is there an Eclipse issue about this in Bugzilla? As I mentioned some
time ago, if I add the dependency to the .classpath it should function the
same as adding it to module-info.

On Tue, May 22, 2018 at 5:37 PM, Tom Schindl <tom.schindl at bestsolution.at>
wrote:

> 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
> >>
> >
>