Why not use java.util.logging?

java

logging-performance

logging-implementation

best-practices

byNikita Barsukov·Jan 6, 2025

java.util.logging (JUL) doesn't hit the mark. It comes with rigid configuration and integration hang-ups. Developers tend to favor log4j2 or logback for superior performance and nifty features, such as asynchronous logging.

Enter SLF4J to unlock the possibilities:

import org.slf4j.Logger;
import org.slf4j.LoggerFactory;

public class MyClass {
   private static final Logger logger = LoggerFactory.getLogger(MyClass.class);
   public void execute() {
      logger.debug("Logging efficiency upped with SLF4J/log4j2");
      //Who said you can't debug and have fun?
   }
}

This approach upgrades your logging game with the least code intervention, leveraging the capabilities of robust JUL alternatives.

Turbo-charged performance

Performance matters, right? That's where JUL somewhat trips over. Its performance is notably slower when compared to SLF4J's efficient parametrization, being up to 10 times faster than JUL's string concatenation approach.

In performance-sensitive operations, the choice of logging implementation can be pivotal. Benchmarks often favor SLF4J with Logback, particularly in demanding logging scenarios or high-traffic environments.

Catering to user preferences

Let's not forget the importance of personalization and ecosystem diversity. With SLF4J, you hand users the reins to pick their preferred logging enhancements. This is even more important when they have already sunk resources into a specific logging framework.

For greenfield projects, consider leveraging the sleek System.Logger interface introduced in Java 9 as a better alternative to JUL.

Elasticity and planning for the future

When you commit to a logging framework, seek one that has a strong presence in the current market for community support and is versatile for retrofitting into existing architectures. You don’t want to have to rip everything out later on!

Dynamic logging redirection supported by SLF4J helps in future-proofing your libraries, paving the way for easier maintenance and updates.

Making informed choices

Making the right choice requires weighing in the trade-offs between speed, ease of API use, and dependencies. While Logback might offer a user-friendly API and potentially simplify development efforts, it’s crucial not to let familiarity clouds the gains alternative loggings frameworks could provide.

Embracing modularity

Modularity is the lifeblood of modern software development. Embracing SLF4J means you're adopting a modular logging facade that gives you the tools to flex and adapt when you need to.

This means as your project evolves, your logging can evolve with it. If you decide to swap out the underlying logging implementation, you can do it with minimal impact on your overall codebase, ensuring that your logging remains consistent, maintainable, and, most importantly, not a headache!

explain-codes / Java / Why not use java.util.logging?

Linked

How to configure slf4j-simple



Seeking useful Eclipse Java code templates



Slf4j: Failed to load class "org.slf4j.impl.StaticLoggerBinder"



How to intercept SLF4J (with logback) logging via a JUnit test?



Get name of currently executing test in JUnit 4

