How does Java Util Logging compare to other logging frameworks?

General Discussions
,
1

For the first time, I’m writing an open-source Java API that may be widely used.

I’ve always relied on Java Util Logging (JUL) without issues, but now I’m wondering if it’s the right choice. Many developers prefer alternatives like SLF4J or Logback.

What are the key drawbacks of Java Util Logging, and would choosing it for my API be a mistake?

2

Java Util Logging (JUL) is built into the JDK, so it’s a natural first choice. It works fine for basic applications and removes the need for extra dependencies. But for an open-source API, JUL has some serious limitations:

Poor Performance – It’s slower than Logback and doesn’t handle high-throughput logging efficiently.

Limited Flexibility – Configuring JUL via logging.properties is clunky, and the formatting options are limited.

Weak Support for MDC (Mapped Diagnostic Context) – Other frameworks provide better ways to track logs across multiple threads.

If your API is small and doesn’t require advanced logging features, JUL is okay, but for a widely used library, you might want a more flexible solution.

3

The first answer makes great points, and I’d add that JUL’s biggest issue is forcing users into a specific logging framework. That’s where SLF4J (Simple Logging Facade for Java) comes in. Instead of hardcoding JUL into your API, you can use SLF4J as an abstraction layer.

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

public class MyAPI {
    private static final Logger logger = LoggerFactory.getLogger(MyAPI.class);

    public void doSomething() {
        logger.info("Action performed");
    }
}

Why is this better?

:heavy_check_mark: Users can choose their preferred backend (Logback, JUL, Log4j, etc.).

:heavy_check_mark: Better performance than JUL, especially with Logback.

:heavy_check_mark: More advanced features, like structured logging and MDC support.

If you want maximum flexibility for API consumers, SLF4J is the right choice.