Would it make sense to put something like that in Log4j, since the
functionality doesn't currently exist?

>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 06/08/04 05:21PM >>>
I would suggest then simply setting up a ThreadLocal Logger then, 
configured at the start of your request, that all the participants
expect 
to be there.

On Tue, 8 Jun 2004, Tony Thompson wrote:

>> Pardon my asking but what is wrong with:
>>
>>  void getUser() {
>>      Logger logger = LogManager.getLogger( "org.widgets.getUser" );
>>  }
>>
>> or just
>>
>>  void getUser() {
>>      Logger logger = LogManager.getLogger( "org.widgets" );
>>  }
>>
>> Why should the logging in getUser() care if it has been called by
> login()
>> or by logout()?
>>
>> Please bear with me, I am trying to understand the use case.
>
> No problem.
>
> I don't really want getUser() to have its own logging category.  What
I
> am concerned about is the end user experience.  If I am the end user
and
> I want to see DEBUG for the login process, I shouldn't have to set
DEBUG
> levels on more than one category.  I should set DEBUG for
> "org.widgets.login" and see all of the debug available for the login
> process.  Plus, getUser() would display DEBUG messages every time
> logout() is called which is not what I wanted either.
>
> Now, as the server developer, I could implement getUser() like this:
>
> void getUser( Logger logger ) {
> }
>
> and just pass the logger in every time I call it.  That would
> accomplish the same thing.  But, I don't really want to mess with all
of
> the code that calls getUser() and pass in a Logger.
>
> So, to me, the cleanest solution would be to set a Logger for the
> current thread.  Then getUser() can just grab the "current" logger
and
> use that.  It doesn't care because it is only part of a larger
process
> anyway.  This is an implementation detail but, you would also need a
> default category (maybe the root logger) to log messages to in case
the
> caller hasn't set a logger context.  Either way, getUser() relies on
> someone else to tell it what its logger should be.
>
> Tony
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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] 


------------------------------------------------------------
Mail was checked for spam by the Freeware Edition of No Spam Today!
The Freeware Edition is free for personal and non-commercial use.
You can remove this notice by purchasing a full license! To order
or to find out more please visit: http://www.no-spam-today.com

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Reply via email to