I’ll note that MessageSupplier is deprecated, and we eventually added support for Supplier<Message>, so that’s already there. Since it sounds like we have some good ideas on what a minimal v3.Logger API would look like, it would be cool if anyone would like to propose a full API. Here’s another Logger API to consider (from OpenTelemetry, something I’ve been considering for future integration purposes, though this might be mostly on the Flume side of things): https://javadoc.io/doc/io.opentelemetry/opentelemetry-api-logs/latest/io/opentelemetry/api/logs/LogRecordBuilder.html (their Logger returns this builder class). — Matt Sicker
> On Nov 23, 2023, at 03:31, Piotr P. Karwasz <piotr.karw...@gmail.com> wrote: > > 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