Simon Kitching wrote:
On Sat, 2006-04-22 at 00:00 -0400, Frank W. Zammetti wrote:
Ah, ok, so then a logger is named after the package of the class it is
defined in? If xxxx is the name of the logger, as the docs say, that
would make sense (and that would also be the missing piece of the puzzle
I needed to understand that, because I had read those docs before).
No, a logger can be named anything at all.
As a convenience, a Class can be passed in which case the name =
class.getName(). Log objects don't have to have names which match the
class they are used by, but it's a very common convention.
I didn't realize that, I thought it was a requirement.
In 99% of cases, when loggers are created they are created by passing a
Class object, ie have name of the class that created them.
package example.foo;
public Widget {
// log has name(aka category) of example.foo.Widget
private Log log = LogFactory.getLog(Widget.class);
// special log object for issuing messages that can be
// filtered/written using rules different from the ones
// for class-specific log messages.
private Log sysAdminLog = LogFactory.getLog("sysadmin-alerts");
}
Yep, exactly what I've always done. Didn't realize I had a choice :)
I guess now I'm not quite understanding what the xxxx is then in the
config... would I then have to use the same name in all the classes of a
given package?
In other words, like I said, I usually use the Class name paradigm as
you describe... so, let's say I have a class com.company.app.ClassA, the
logger would be named "ClassA" (or would it be the fully-qualified name?
I'd still have the same question either way)... So, if in the config I
specify:
-Dorg.apache.commons.logging.simplelog.log.com.company.app=debug
Will it actually do anything? I mean, won't it be looking for a logger
with the name "com.company.app", when in fact there is none because it's
either "com.company.app.ClassA" or simply "ClassA"? (not sure off-hand
what you get from the .class property, fully-qualified name or not).
But, if I used the same logger name, say "com.company.app" for all the
classes in that package (can I even do that?), then it makes sense to me
how it would work. But outside that, I guess I'm still not clear (I'm
probably just being thick-headed in any case!)
Thanks again Simon!
Regards,
Simon
Frank
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
Frank W. Zammetti
Founder and Chief Software Architect
Omnytex Technologies
http://www.omnytex.com
AIM: fzammetti
Yahoo: fzammetti
MSN: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Java Web Parts -
http://javawebparts.sourceforge.net
Supplying the wheel, so you don't have to reinvent it!
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
