a good point, but the Brian (the original poster) was looking for a way to
avoid having to provide the Class object when calling
Logger.getLogger(Class clazz). He was suggesting a way to provide a
no-args Logger.getLogger(). Having a no-args Logger.getLogger() would be
really nice, but using the stack trace to determine the caller's class has
a few limitations (doesn't work correctly in some inheritance situations,
stack traces may not be complete with some JVMs, no pre 1.4
implementation).
if Brian is comfortable with those limitations/risks, he can use the code
he wrote to do what he wants without modifying log4j itself. *I'm*
comfortable with it for my stuff, and it's part of my bag o'tricks....
package org.wegscheid.log4j;
import org.apache.log4j.Logger;
public class MyMagicLogFactory {
public static Logger getLogger() {
String myClassName = MyMagicLogFactory.class.getName();
StackTraceElement[] stack = Thread.currentThread().getStackTrace();
//stack = new Throwable().getStackTrace();
for (int i = 0; i < stack.length; i++) {
if (myClassName.equals(stack[i].getClassName())) {
return Logger.getLogger(stack[i+1].getClassName());
}
}
return null;
}
}
package org.wegscheid.traceback;
import org.apache.log4j.Logger;
import org.wegscheid.log4j.MyMagicLogFactory;
public class Thing {
static Logger logger = MyMagicLogFactory.getLogger();
public static void main (String[] args) {
logger.info("it's magic...");
}
}
while I'm willing to personally live with the risk for personal projects,
I'd be nervous about making this part of log4j and forcing/encouraging
some new log4j user to live with it, it's just not reliable...
I hadn't seen the Thread.currentThread().getStackTrace() show up in Java5
(I've been using the StackTraceElement[] stack = new
Throwable().getStackTrace(); hack), and appreciate him sharing his idea.\
Douglas E Wegscheid
Lead Technical Analyst, Whirlpool Corporation
(269)-923-5278
"A wrong note played hesitatingly is a wrong note. A wrong note played
with conviction is interpretation."
> "Craig P. Motlin" <[email protected]> wrote:
>This is a non-issue. If you need to log an object's type, call
>getClass().getName() and log it as a normal message. Stick to one
>private static logger in each class. The logger name will represent
>where the logging statement occurred, not the run time type of the
>logging object.
