Re: Question about loggers

From:

Lew <noone@lewscanon.com>

Newsgroups:

comp.lang.java.programmer

Date:

Fri, 09 Mar 2012 07:45:06 -0800

Message-ID:

<jjd8i2$475$1@news.albasani.net>

Robert Klemme wrote:

markspace wrote:

Robert Klemme wrote:

We should mention that this is not exactly equivalent from the
logging point of view.

Also be aware that while static loggers are common in Java in general,
instance loggers are recommended best practice according the the Apache
Commons website.

I think this is not exactly true if you are referring to this:

"Note that for application code, declaring the log member as "static" is more efficient as one Log object is created per class, and is recommended. However this is not safe to do for a class which may be deployed via a "shared" classloader in a servlet or j2ee container or similar environment. If the class may end up invoked with different thread-context-classloader values set then the member must not be declared static. The use of "static" should therefore be avoided in code within any "library" type project."

Declaring a log member as 'static' is not more efficient. What are they
talking about?

When advice is clearly baloney, you can disregard it.

http://commons.apache.org/logging/guide.html

Truth is that static loggers are recommended for application code; only for library code they recommend against static loggers.

Either way you take it, their recommendation is BS.

--
Lew
Honi soit qui mal y pense.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/cf/Friz.jpg