I really don't think this should be the reason to make the Logger (or
its wrapper) an instance variable of each class...this should be a
fairly common problem , how do you guys handle it?
Do you have each class define and/or initialize its own Logger?
If you have a superclass and a subclass, does your subclass inherit
superclass's Logger?
Thanks,
-wleana
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], "wleana" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi, I have a design issue related to the fact that the Logger needs
> to be static. And suppose I have A and its subclass B.
>
> I have a wrapper MyLog that wraps around Logger and a myId field of
> each class, in which, the log message always print out myId of its
> caller.
>
> class A {
> private static MyLog mLog;
> protected myId;
> A(){
> myId = "A";
> init myLog with myId...
> }
>
> public void doSth(String aMsg){
> mLog.debug(aMsg);
> }
> }
>
> class B extends A{
> B(){
> myId = "B";
> super()
> }
> }
>
> When I do this:
> B b=new B();
> b.doSth("blah");
>
> The log will actually show the caller's myId is "A", instead of "B".
> (you see I even make the myId field non-static because of the same
> issue, but actually I would like it to be static conceptually)
>
> I have tried different ways, it only works if mLog is not static,
the
> within doSth from class A, it will actually dynamically use object
of
> type B's mLog...But we want the Logger class (or its wrapper class)
> to belong to class not to an object...how should we solve this?
What
> should be the right design of this? Please share your thoughts.
>
> Thanks a lot.
> -wleana
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
-
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
