On 8/3/07, Costin Manolache <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 8/2/07, Len Popp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > On 7/31/07, Rainer Jung <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > My personal opinion: java.util.logging very much lacks a good formatter. > > > The default 2 line formatting of messages, splitting timestamps and > > > message in separate lines, is not really useful in production. Many ad > > > hoc log analysis practices work on a line oriented basis. > > > > How would exception stack traces be handled? That's an important > > consideration because a stack trace is the first thing people ask for > > when someone has a problem. :-) > > I like the idea of one line per entry, but stack traces don't seem to > > fit into that format. If you collapse a stack trace onto one line, > > it's a lot harder to read. If you keep the multi-line format for stack > > traces, you keep the same problem with log analysis practices that > > work on a line oriented basis. > > > It's not only log tools who dislike the 2-line format - also humans. > > For a tool - detecting the stack trace is not that hard, it's a simple > pattern. > > But maybe a compact binary format would be more interesting for tools, and > could be converted to different layouts for people. > > Costin
Oh, I'm one of the humans who prefers one line per entry - at least for short entries. I'm not against changing the log format. I'm just not sure if you can put a stack trace on one line and keep it readable. I wouldn't like to have a binary file format that I need a special program to read, or that is incompatible with standard tools like grep, tail, etc. -- Len --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
