> Prior company had a shared plugin that let you turn up the logging for a given logger remotely for 30 minutes (it self reset).
And you really believe this should be a feature of you logging library, and not of you configuration system?
And you really believe this should be a feature of you logging library, and not of you configuration system?
> How much log data do you think cloudwatch and the other majors filter per hour?
How much do you think the major providers pay for that infrastructure per hour, and are you willing to shoulder that cost too?
(Hint: log ingestion is $0.50 per gigabyte in cloudwatch. So a terabyte of logs an hour is $512/hr)
Only if the emissions of said logs is doing more than stdout or fs writing and it’s not done in another thread.
> Log emission can often have a negative impact on performance, especially since peak logs and peak traffic tend to coincide. I’ve seen P95 latencies suffer just because of logs.
Yes and you need to fix that terabyte per hour garbage as that is well beyond typical for a single service. We’re also talking about java so 7000 page stack traces is where i’d start…
The only way to make a "reconfigurable" logging system is by having a stable facade that restarts everything behind it. But that extra layer does not belong on a logging system, there are plenty of other things you need to make "reconfigurable", and now you are adding an extra layer into each of them, instead of having only one on your main entry point.
Pushing that feature down into the logging system is the choice that maximizes complexity and minimizes functionality.
Also, I noticed you didn’t answer my question about whether you’re a Java developer.
I was once, but haven't used it professionally for a while. It's on my "I'd rather not" list, but not strongly so.
Oh, and now that you described it with so many details, the attachment to complexity does look more like addiction than love.
This is why I ask. Java has changed a lot since ~1.8, and it is super common to see ex or non java developers making grandiose and sweeping statements about a community and language that they are no longer part of. Having developed in Java on and off since ~1.7 and Spring 3, I can certainly say that I have seen a strong movement towards less complexity and more convention. It's not perfect by any stretch, but I think saying that the space is "in love with complexity" is incorrect.
You of course don't have to go and re-use Java on my suggestion. We all have our preferences, and that's ok! But I would generally recommend against such sweeping and dismissive general statements about a culture that you are no longer part of. Things change, and your experience back then is probably not representative of things today.
> Oh, and now that you described it with so many details, the attachment to complexity does look more like addiction than love.
There's a fine line between disagreement and insult, and you are over it.