[slf4j-dev] Why no error(Throwable) on the Logger interface?

[Ceki Gulcu]

Jukka Zitting wrote:
> 
> On Thu, May 28, 2009 at 6:17 PM, Ceki Gulcu <ceki at qos.ch> wrote:
> 
> No, just that in most cases some essential piece of the puzzle (source
> code, stack traces, or in this specific example thread names) is not
> readily available for a variety of different reasons. For example,
> I've seen lots of log4j configurations without thread names included
> in the log output. Sure you can ask the configuration to be changed,
> but that's not very optimal if you're trying to identify a problem
> that occurs perhaps only once a month in a production environment.

Tautologically, including relevant data in the the log statement,
is by construction of my phrase, relevant -- and thus potentially
helpful. However, manually including data, such as the date and thread
names, which are readily supplied by most the logging frameworks,
would be a waste of developer resources. I am just repeating the
obvious.

It might be that in certain dysfunctional environments, where it is
hard to have the admins change logging configuration, it may be easier
for the developer to manually add data. However, a dysfunctional
environment does not justify the promulgation of a general rule.

 > In summary, you generally can't trust on having all the potential data
 > available to support the task of deciphering the meaning of a log
 > entry, which makes meaningful log messages all the more important.

Of course. No one rule fits it all. It all depends on your
environment.  However, in a "normal" environment, it should be easy to
include date and thread name in the logs by configuration. In that
case, it would be redundant and wasteful to include the same
information by hand (of the programmer).

Coming back to the original issue, while in a small number of cases,
you might not want to include an accompanying message with an
exception, in many other cases, it is desirable to include some
contextual message to accompany the exception. In the former case,
nothing prevents you from using a constant String for the accompanying
message, such as "" or "EXCEPTION OCCURRED".

Anyway, this API change is proposed with a certain regularity, every 6
months or so but given that:

1) in many cases it is useful to have a message accompanying an
exception (read: The existing API style is actually better.)

2) in other cases, a fixed message String can be used (read: The
existing API style allows an easy work around)

3) the style predates to log4j days and is well known (read: The
existing SLF4J API style benefits from the status quo effect)

there is very small chance (n.b. zero is small) for the suggested change to
occur.


> BR,
> 
> Jukka Zitting

-- 
Ceki Gülcü
Logback: The reliable, generic, fast and flexible logging framework for Java.
http://logback.qos.ch