Bibliographic record
Abstract
Software logging is widely used in practice. Logs have been used for a variety of purposes like debugging, monitoring, security compliance, and business analytics. Instead of directly invoking the standard output functions, developers usually prefer to use logging utilities (LUs) (e.g., SLF4J), which provide additional functionalities like thread-safety and verbosity level support, to instrument their source code. Many of the previous research works on software logging are focused on the log printing code. There are very few works studying the use of LUs, although new LUs are constantly being introduced by companies and researchers. In this paper, we conducted a large-scale empirical study on the use of Java LUs in the wild. We analyzed the use of 3, 856 LUs from 11,194 projects in GitHub and found that many projects have complex usage patterns for LUs. For example, 75.8% of the large-sized projects have implemented their own LUs in their projects. More than 50% of these projects use at least three LUs. We conducted further qualitative studies to better understand and characterize the complex use of LUs. Our findings show that different LUs are used for a variety of reasons (e.g., internationalization of the log messages). Some projects develop their own LUs to satisfy project-specific logging needs (e.g., defining the logging format). Multiple uses of LUs in one project are pretty common for large and very largesized projects mainly for context like enabling and configuring the logging behavior for the imported packages. Interviewing with 13 industrial developers showed that our findings are also generally true for industrial projects and are considered as very helpful for them to better configure and manage the logging behavior for their projects. The findings and the implications presented in this paper will be useful for developers and researchers who are interested in developing and maintaining LUs.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.016 | 0.086 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".