On 9/6/2013 12:38 AM, Daniel Fuchs wrote:
Should this simply call LogManager.getLogManager() unconditionally as
in getGlobal()?
I don't think this would be required.
Maybe we could make checkPermission() static in LogManager?
That's not a bad idea.
But we might still need to call LogManager.getLogManager() to avoid
regression
in code using Logger.global directly...
Yup
760 final LogManager owner = getOwner();
761 logger.setLogManager(owner);
Should this have an assert to ensure logger.manager == null or == owner?
We don't expect a Logger to change its owner, do we? The behavior of
multiple
LogManager instances is not specified anyway.
I am concerned it could introduce regressions in applications that
use multiple instances of LogManager or subclasses of Logger.
I agree this is not perfect. Unfortunately I don't see any ideal
solution.
Are you concerned even if it's an assert?
Mandy
