Develop Reference

Arch test failing STANDARD_STREAMS

I have app which folowing by archunit rules and I get:
NO_CLASSES_SHOULD_ACCESS_STANDARD_STREAMS
failed rule - it's mean I can't use standard Java I/O Streams. But what I can use instead?
How I can avoid this architecture rule with another Java methods instead standard streams? Because My arch rules are failing

NO_CLASSES_SHOULD_ACCESS_STANDARD_STREAMS - is, the System.out, System.err, and printStackTrace methods: use a logging library instead. So I think you need remove all println System.out.println()

The documentation, i.e. the javadoc of NO_CLASSES_SHOULD_ACCESS_STANDARD_STREAMS, says:
It is generally good practice to use correct logging instead of writing to the console.
Writing to the console cannot be configured in production
Writing to the console is synchronized and can lead to bottle necks
For information about checking this rule, refer to GeneralCodingRules.
You asked how to avoid this architecture rule. Just do what it says: Use logging!

Why is assert not enabled by default in java

My question is from the perspective of language design.
Why is assert treated differently i.e. it raises a error and not an exception, it is not enabled by default etc..
It does seem elegant(very subjective opinion), easy to read(again subjective) for doing validations & also there are tools(IDE) which can live-evaluate it and provide warnings based on assertions.

I'd say that the reason is that defaults for Java are meant for production code (the "release" version of software) - if users need to build your code they will use provided defaults and if you are developer and want to have better reporting you can always make some additional effort.
Usually you don't want to ship assertions with a release version. Why? You can always design your code to perform some not disturbing background error handling and throwing AssertionError in users face is not always the way to go.
Most of the time I see them used as additional code testing - when you run regression tests and code coverage is high no assertion error suggest that there are no (obvious to spot) errors in your code. If some happens, you can deduce from stack trace what went wrong and why. On the other hand clients shouldn't be bothered with seeing descriptive error information.
So how should you actually use them? In my experience you should design code to not use assertions to perform error handling. If you want exception to be thrown somewhere throw it explicitly yourself. Once code can handle itself, you can add assertions to check pre- and postconditions as well as invariants - so basically used them to check algorithm correctness instead of data correctness. It has value for developers rather than users. Once you have enough confidence in your solution, you can disable assertions, your program still works fine and your users don't have to run program with additional runtime overhead.

Asserts are tools for the developer.
The core reason it's not enabled by default is that assertions via assert are not meant to provide run-time validation/protection for production code.
assert is a tool for use in development process and during testing that should not impact performance during actual running in production environment.
Imagine a very heavy weight assertions that are critical to check when building out a new feature or a change against a entire range of allowable inputs, but once built and properly tested, don't need to run until code changes again.

It raises an error, because the severity of an assertion violation is high enough to do so.
An example for an Exception is something like ArrayIndexOutOfBounds. This might be reasonable in some cases and you might even expect (and handle) such a case.
But an assertion violation is (like out of memory e.g.) nothing you would ever expect or you would like to deal with. It's an error and there is no excuse.
Assertions are not enabled by default, because they should be always fullfilled. You enable them to test for that, but then you "know" (as far as you can know) that they are not violated. So you don't need to check the conditions (which might be performance intensive) every time in production code.
The good thing about assertions in Java is, that the code actually performing the checks is never executed, when assertions are not enabled.
For example:
if (!doComplexChecks()) throw new AssertionError("Damn!");
might take a lot of time and you want to verify this when unit testing or debugging, but in production you just don't want that.
But this code
assert doComplexChecks();
is only executed, when assertions are enabled, so it saves you a lot of time in production code.

Pattern to let client selectively handle errors in Java

I am writing a wrapper around the DefaultHttpClient to handle some of the error-prone configuration options.
For example I will pre-configure everything to handle UTF-8 properly and to shutdown the connection cleanly.
When a non-200 is returned, I thought about the client registering a handler for a specific status code and then calling it.
I would provide some default handlers to take care of simple cases.
Is this a good pattern for a clean API? If I throw exceptions, the client has to handle cases which might not happen at all as I would have to throw an exception per possible HTTP status code (or most).
The thing I like about handlers is that I can provide a couple of 'default handlers' which might be overwritten...
I'd like to hear your input and maybe get some more creative ideas.
Cheers

Currently, accepted practice for Java APIs is to employ unchecked exceptions, so client won't need to change it's internal code just to accommodate API's exceptions into client's codebase.
Instead, if you use unchecked exceptions, you'll save your code unchanged except the places where you really need to handle exceptions.
Here're slides about Robert Martin's "Clean code" book which talk about error handling best practices: slides.

I wouldn't create a different exception for each http error code. At most create one or two general exceptions and store the exact error code as part of the exception. That way if the client code just wants to log or ignore them it can, or it can get more details based on the error code.

Advantage in using Java Logger?

I want to log information to a file and want to know is there any advantage in using the Java Logger class versus my own personal method of logging?
I know using a logger I just add my own FileHandler to the logger. My personal method is just using a FileOutputStream.

Honestly your logger may be as good, it's pretty easy to put in log levels, filtering, etc.
The problem is when you start to put together code from 10 different groups each with their own logging. Some use System.out, some use some custom logger, some use log4j, ...
How do you parse or redirect the output? How do you filter all that output to just show your messages (For instance, filtering options in log4j won't prevent messages being sent straight to System.out).
It's a pretty big bulk change depending on which system you are moving from/to. Better just to use one very common one from the beginning and hope that it's the one everybody else on the project chooses.

The real question is: why would you bother writing your own logger when there are already existing libraries for doing that? Does your logger do something that the others don't? I kind of doubt it.
Standardization is another big issue - see Bill K's answer.

For most scenarios, a standard logging framework is the way to go. They are pretty flexible. But using your own implementation can also be a valid option, specially if we are not speaking of traditional logging (global debugging, problems, warning messages) but about specific informational meesages or accounting.
Among other factors, bear in mind that the standarization of logging allows third party libraries to cooperate. For example, if you have a standard web application using (say) Hibernate, and you have configured a standard Java logging lib, then you can not only log from your own code but also tell Hibernate to log debugging info to your log files (not necessarily the same files). That is very useful - almost a must.
If you code your own logging library with a plain FileOutputStream, you must decide -among other things- if you are going to keep the file opened, or reopen-append-close in each write - and you must take of synchronization and related issues. Nothing terribly complicated, though.

The logger gives to ability to define different levels of importance of the logged messages and the ability to use different sink for the output - the console, a file, etc.
Also it's easy to enable or disable only some type of message when using a logger - for example you don't want to see every debug message in production.

A logging framework allows you specify logging levels (e.g. log only critical messages, log only debug messages etc.). It also allows you to log to multiple destinations (e.g. to a file, to syslog etc.) and you can do this even after your application is fully built by just changing a config file and not changing any code. It can also format your logs easily depending on various parameters.
There are numerous other advantages since proper logging is a rather involved problem and these packages have been written to solve them. I think the important question, why would you not use them?

Well I would always prefer tested thing and approved by community over something which still need a lot of test. Logger allows you many things which will consume you some time to implement and to test the robustness of your solution. A big plus will be the know-how of the next person who will do something with your code, in case it will be your logger, normally it would take more time to learn how its working out, since there is much more examples and documentation for java.util.logger.

Like all others mention, there are more advantages to using a more common logging system over writing your own. To be honest, the Java util logging api is not nearly as extensive and configurable as other libraries you might find out there on the internet.
Bare in mind that rolling your own always has the disadvantage of being less tested and therefore more prone to break or skip some potentially crucial messages.
Personally I prefer using SLF4J since it allows me to plug in adapters for more commonly used logging frameworks and then let's me pick my own actual logging implementation, this solves most of the problems with different library writers preferring different logging frameworks. And if you consider yourself up for the task you could writer an implementation for SLF4J yourself ;)

java runtime tracing library to replace system.out.println

Have you heard of any library which would allow me to set up tracing for specific methods at runtime?
Instead of adding (and removing) lots of System.out.println in my code (and having to re-compile and re-deploy) I would like to have a magic thing which would print out a line for each call of selected method without any change in the code. This would work without re-compiling, so some kind of JVM agent (or some non-standard JVM would be needed?). Sounds like a job for aspect programming?
A typical scenario would be to start an application, configure the traced methods dynamically (in a separate file or similar) and then everytime a selected method is called a line with its name (and arguments) is printed out to System.out (or some log file).
Naturally one could think of tens of additional features, but this basic set would be a great tool. BTW, I use Eclipse interactive debugger too, not only the System.out tracing technique, but both have some advantages and sometimes Eclipse is not enough.

Yes what you are referring to is known as Aspect oriented programming. A typical library providing this for Java is AspectJ. You define what are called pointcuts, essentially regular expressions for classes and method names, including wildcards, and the code to execute at each pointcut, known as an advice. This is useful for logging and also security checks and similar cross cutting concerns.
You can turn pointcut advices on and off through configuration. You can have an advice execute before a method call, after it returns or even after it throws an exception. Arguments are also available.
An aspectj java agent is needed for this to work.

In my experience, that kind of very detailed tracing (much more detailed than one would normally use for logging) as a debugging technique is indicative of insufficient unit testing and integration testing.

You can do this using a tool called InTrace.
NOTE: InTrace is a free and open source tool which I have written.

Log4J useful for disabling logging depending on "log-level" (DEBUG, INFO, WARN, FATAL).
You specify in configuration file what the least level you want to appear in logs, e.g., don't log anything below INFO level, and voila!

Looks like there's yet another solution - called Byteman. In their own words:
Byteman is a tool which simplifies tracing and testing of Java
programs. Byteman allows you to insert extra Java code into your
application, either as it is loaded during JVM startup or even after
it has already started running. The injected code is allowed to access
any of your data and call any application methods, including where
they are private. You can inject code almost anywhere you want and
there is no need to prepare the original source code in advance nor do
you have to recompile, repackage or redeploy your application. In fact
you can remove injected code and reinstall different code while the
application continues to execute.

Jackplay is the tool you are looking for.
It allows you to enable logging on method entry and exit points without any coding or redeployment.
It also allows redefining a method body. It gives you web based UI as control panel to enable or undo tracing on your class.methods.