Re: Question about loggers

From:

Robert Klemme <shortcutter@googlemail.com>

Newsgroups:

comp.lang.java.programmer

Date:

Fri, 9 Mar 2012 07:11:33 -0800 (PST)

Message-ID:

<17863687.969.1331305893320.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@vblb5>

On Thursday, March 8, 2012 7:05:57 PM UTC+1, markspace wrote:

On 3/8/2012 8:15 AM, 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 mo=
re efficient as one Log object is created per class, and is recommended. Ho=
wever this is not safe to do for a class which may be deployed via a "share=
d" classloader in a servlet or j2ee container or similar environment. If th=
e class may end up invoked with different thread-context-classloader values=
set then the member must not be declared static. The use of "static" shoul=
d therefore be avoided in code within any "library" type project."

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.

Kind regards

robert