<AWT Dev> Review Request for 6879044

Alan Bateman Alan.Bateman at Sun.COM
Thu Sep 17 01:56:42 PDT 2009

Oleg Sukhodolsky wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 15, 2009 at 11:13 PM, Mandy Chung <Mandy.Chung at sun.com> wrote:
>> :
>>> complicate porting JRE implementation.
>> How does it complicate the porting?
> I'm not sure that IBM's or some other's version of JDK is allowed to
> contain such
> classes, thus it may be harder to port our RI to their implementation .
I don't see a problem here. These are implementation classes (you'll see 
that AWT already makes use of lot of implementation classes from 
sun.awt, sun.security, sun.java2d, and more). Furthermore, these changes 
aren't introducing any platform dependent or native code that increases 
porting efforts. If there are ports that already remove these loggers 
then the effort, once Mandy's changes are in, isn't any different.


> Why we have to remove all usages of logging in our code instead of
> changing logging package to be
> more startup friendly?
I haven't seen any proposals to eliminate the logging but rather the 
suggestion is that this logging should be re-examined because there are 
way too many loggers created at startup. For example, one of the 
suggestions that Mandy has put in 6880089 [1] is that there be a logger 
per core component rather than class.


[1] http://bugs.sun.com/bugdatabase/view_bug.do?bug_id=6880089

More information about the awt-dev mailing list