JDK Logging API

Question

Why is JDK's Logging API considered so poor? What do we gain by using third party logging APIs such as Apache Log4j?

It would be a mistake to ignore history: log4j actually predates java.util.logging (which was only added in 1.4). So it had a 3 or so year head start to be established as the standard. Point being, it's not like log4j got really popular by being an alternative to JUL. — Mark Peters
– Mark Peters, Commented Mar 15, 2011 at 14:19

initialZero · Accepted Answer · 2011-03-15 14:35:55Z

3

For most cases java.util.Logging is just fine. Most 3rd party logging packages were developed before the Standard API had any logging.

answered Mar 15, 2011 at 14:35

initialZero

6,41710 gold badges32 silver badges38 bronze badges

Sign up to request clarification or add additional context in comments.

Comments

Stan Kurilin · Accepted Answer · 2011-03-15 14:31:35Z

2

Log4j was created before JDK's Logging API. Nowadays, you should prefer using slf4j for dealing with all java logging world in facade way.

edited Mar 15, 2011 at 14:31

answered Mar 15, 2011 at 14:20

Stan Kurilin

15.9k22 gold badges85 silver badges134 bronze badges

5 Comments

Riduidel Over a year ago

"Should" seems rather definitive, no ?

Joachim Sauer Over a year ago

Which doesn't really answer the question, it only modifies it: Why choose (the third party dependency) slf4j instead of (the built-in) JUL?

Stan Kurilin Over a year ago

@Joachim Sauer , reason provided.

z7sg Ѫ Over a year ago

Sorry but it is not OK. Should choose slf4j if you are creating a library, so users can plug their chosen implementation into the facade, however, if it's an end-product it's usually more convenient to use a logging framework directly.

Stan Kurilin Over a year ago

@z7sg, Let's say that using slf4j instead of a logging framework directly improves code's reusability, don't it? So it's wright way.

Bombe · Accepted Answer · 2011-03-15 14:30:59Z

1

I’m using a (very very thin) self-written layer on top of the JDK’s logging system because it is easy to use, easy to configure, and easy to extend. Even without this layer the JDK’s logging system is quite sufficient so that there is (in my opinion) no need for other logging APIs. Also, as it’s included in the JDK it should be considered a standard.

answered Mar 15, 2011 at 14:30

Bombe

84.4k20 gold badges127 silver badges127 bronze badges

2 Comments

Joachim Sauer Over a year ago

Isn't that very, very thin layer what slf4j tries to be?

Bombe Over a year ago

Maybe, but it tries to be a very, very thin layer for ALL logging systems. :)

SPee · Accepted Answer · 2011-03-15 16:36:25Z

-2

It's because the Logger class of the JDK isn't an interface. Therefore, you have no (very little) control about how the logging is done.

With commons-logging, log4j, slf4j you can choose how and where it should log the message. Whether this is into a file, into a database, redirect it to the application server logging, etc. With the JDK logging you can't. It's always to a file. And should you want another log level, you can't.

It does use varargs like slf4j, so you don't have to concatenate the String message beforehand. But the other disadvantages are too great.

answered Mar 15, 2011 at 16:36

SPee

6744 silver badges5 bronze badges

1 Comment

gshauger Over a year ago

This is completely innacurate. Java Logging supports a Handler interface which allows you to log to practically anything. It also has 9 Levels at which to log at

Collectives™ on Stack Overflow

JDK Logging API

4 Answers 4

Comments

5 Comments

2 Comments

1 Comment

Your Answer

Hot Network Questions

Collectives™ on Stack Overflow

4 Answers 4

Comments

5 Comments

2 Comments

1 Comment

Your Answer

Sign up or log in

Post as a guest

Related