<AWT Dev> Review Request for 6879044

Alan Bateman Alan.Bateman at Sun.COM
Thu Sep 17 03:43:06 PDT 2009

Anthony Petrov wrote:
> :
> I have to say that that is not the best possible solution. For 
> instance, the sun.awt.X11 classes have many different loggers: for 
> focus-related code, for insets-related code, and so on. If a developer 
> debugs a particular kind of problem, (s)he doesn't need to look 
> through all the garbage that other loggers generate: it's just enough 
> to enable a particular logging facility (such as the
> "sun.awt.X11.insets.XDecoratedPeer" for example) and examine what 
> (s)he really needs.
> Combining all the output to just one logger will make debugging a 
> nightmare.
> I would second to Oleg: improving the performance/design of the 
> existing logging classes at java.util.logging package would help all 
> applications at once.
I'm not familiar with the AWT implementation to have a strong view as to 
how 6880089 is addressed. However, Mandy does raise a good question as 
to why there is a need for so many loggers. I think one mail mentioned 
there 85 loggers setup when running simple "hello world" Framer test. 
Maybe they can be created lazily; maybe some of them aren't needed, but 
at least there is a bug created so that someone can re-visit this. I 
agree that any improvements to j.u.logging would be welcome too but that 
doesn't solve the desire to decouple the dependency. For example, if the 
libraries are broken up into a set of fine grain modules then why would 
I need to have a logging module installed to run a simple client 


More information about the awt-dev mailing list