DO NOT REPLY [Bug 40667] Change protected Loggers to private

https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40667 Glenn Adams changed: What|Removed |Added Status|RESOLVED|CLOSED --- Comment #7 from Glenn Ada

Re: Loggers

On Jan 11, 2007, at 19:51, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Andreas L Delmelle writes: log is a protected static, so if the class resides in the same package, then you can use direct member access. Currently, in some places, the properties seem to be routing the message to the FO's logger, instead of u

Re: Loggers

Andreas L Delmelle writes: > log is a protected static, so if the class resides in the same > package, then you can use direct member access. Currently, in some > places, the properties seem to be routing the message to the FO's > logger, instead of using Property.log directly... Or even

Re: Loggers

On Jan 11, 2007, at 18:31, Andreas L Delmelle wrote: ... use an instance method to access a protected static member of the superclass. That's a good one! :-) And what about: if (log.isDebugEnabled()) { getLogger().debug("..."); } unless we were thinking about tying the settings for the sta

Re: Loggers

On Jan 11, 2007, at 13:41, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In FONode, it say: //TODO Remove getLogger() method! Yet everywhere around the code base it says foo.getLogger(), in particular for FObj instances. What is the preferred way to aquire a logger instance? log is a protected static, so if

Loggers

In FONode, it say: //TODO Remove getLogger() method! Yet everywhere around the code base it says foo.getLogger(), in particular for FObj instances. What is the preferred way to aquire a logger instance? Richard

DO NOT REPLY [Bug 40667] - Change protected Loggers to private

DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL, BUT PLEASE POST YOUR BUG· RELATED COMMENTS THROUGH THE WEB INTERFACE AVAILABLE AT . ANY REPLY MADE TO THIS MESSAGE WILL NOT BE COLLECTED AND· INSERTED IN THE BUG DATABASE. http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bu

DO NOT REPLY [Bug 40667] - Change protected Loggers to private

uring debugging, but it will also increase the number of loggers > considerably. +1 from me. It bugs me every now and then but so far I've never had enough energy to actually do something about it. I only changed something for the breaking algorithm where it was essential for me to keep line

DO NOT REPLY [Bug 40667] - Change protected Loggers to private

gzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40667 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-10-04 12:33 --- (In reply to comment #3) > members and not classLog I had no knowledge about). Yes, there is next step > to > do to change all other protected Loggers for LMs, but for me it would be

DO NOT REPLY [Bug 40667] - Change protected Loggers to private

og I had no knowledge about). Yes, there is next step to do to change all other protected Loggers for LMs, but for me it would be much easier to to if we would deal with code tagging/modules/SVN branches instead of direct text patches. Right now I've applied Patrick's patch and to cha

DO NOT REPLY [Bug 40667] - Change protected Loggers to private

DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL, BUT PLEASE POST YOUR BUG· RELATED COMMENTS THROUGH THE WEB INTERFACE AVAILABLE AT . ANY REPLY MADE TO THIS MESSAGE WILL NOT BE COLLECTED AND· INSERTED IN THE BUG DATABASE. http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bu

DO NOT REPLY [Bug 40667] - Change protected Loggers to private

DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL, BUT PLEASE POST YOUR BUG· RELATED COMMENTS THROUGH THE WEB INTERFACE AVAILABLE AT . ANY REPLY MADE TO THIS MESSAGE WILL NOT BE COLLECTED AND· INSERTED IN THE BUG DATABASE. http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bu

DO NOT REPLY [Bug 40667] New: - Change protected Loggers to private

gzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40667 Summary: Change protected Loggers to private Product: Fop Version: 0.92 Platform: PC OS/Version: other Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: P2 Component: general AssignedTo: f