Hi Matt, On Tue, 21 Nov 2023 at 23:22, Matt Sicker <m...@musigma.org> wrote: > > This sounds like it might be a good basis for figuring out a parallel v3 API > for a “hard to mis-use” style API. However, once you go that route, you start > to wonder how useful templated log messages are when you can capture a lambda > instead. Parameterized log messages might work better as structured log > messages, something that is awkward to use in the API at the moment.
If we'll create a separate `v3.Logger` interface I would clean it up from many methods, e.g.: * getLevel() and getName(): how are these useful for the user? An `if (logger.getLevel() == Level.INFO)` should be replaced by `isEnabled`, * getMessageFactory() and getFlowMessageFactory() (the latter is my fault): again these are not useful to the user. If I need a message factory, it will be a different message factory, * printf(): a better approach is to use StringFormatterMessageFactory for the logger, * catching(Throwable): can be replaced with `error(Object)` and the semantics described in this thread, * throwing: does anybody use it? Maybe it could stay, * entry/exit, traceEntry/traceExit: I can not imagine using these on each method (or important method). I'd rather use AspectJ pointcuts instead (or a @LogTrace annotation), * methods that use `MessageSupplier` like `info(MessageSupplier)`: couldn't these be integrated into the logic of `info(Supplier)`? * the `is*Enabled` methods are prone to misuse: a snippet like: if (logger.isDebugEnabled()) { logger.debug(MARKER, "Hello world!"); } will not print any message if the level of the logger is less specific than DEBUG, even if the user asks for **all** MARKER messages to be printed. IMHO opinion `v3.AbstractLogger` should only have 2 abstract methods: * logMessage(Level level, Marker marker, String fqcn, StackTraceElement location, Message message, Throwable throwable) * isEnabled(Level level, Marker marker, String fqcn, StackTraceElement location, Message message, Throwable throwable) Piotr