Re: Question about loggers

From:

Robert Klemme <shortcutter@googlemail.com>

Newsgroups:

comp.lang.java.programmer

Date:

Fri, 09 Mar 2012 20:29:06 +0100

Message-ID:

<9rv402Fm7U1@mid.individual.net>

On 09.03.2012 16:54, markspace wrote:

Robert Klemme wrote:

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.

By "application" do you mean JEE app or desktop app?

It's not me! I am just quoting. Please read what they write.

Either way, I don't understand your assertion. Why would static vs.
instance make any difference in a library, assuming no shared or other
special classloaders are in use?

Again: it's not my assertion. You were the one who brought up best
practices from Apache Commons:

On 08.03.2012 19:05, markspace wrote:

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 was just pointing out that what you claimed Apache Commons best
practices is (instance loggers as _general_ best practice) is not what
they are actually stating (instance loggers for _library code_).

Cheers

robert

--
remember.guy do |as, often| as.you_can - without end
http://blog.rubybestpractices.com/