<AWT Dev> Review Request for 6879044

Oleg Sukhodolsky son.two at gmail.com
Thu Sep 17 04:17:56 PDT 2009

On Thu, Sep 17, 2009 at 2:43 PM, Alan Bateman <Alan.Bateman at sun.com> wrote:
> 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.

imho removing dependency on j.u.logging for me looks as strange as removing
dependency on j.l.Object or java.util.* :)

> 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 application?

Perhaps because most application use logging ;)

More information about the awt-dev mailing list