Hi Brian,
From the javadoc for Thread getStackTrace():
Some virtual machines may, under some circumstances, omit one or more stack
frames from the stack trace. In the extreme case, a virtual machine that
has no stack trace information concerning this thread is permitted to return
a zero-length
Maybe it will make your code less portable but I still think it's a
good idea. It prevents you from initializing the Logger with
this.getClass().getName(). The logger name shouldn't be the same as
the run time type of the containing object anyway. My factory method
may be even more brittle
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
Great, so we're in agreement. I guess I'm just looking for a case
where it doesn't work with inheritance. I've only seen it work the
same way as creating the Logger by passing in the class literal. Your
very first example had the behavior I would expect - all log
statements appeared to be from
it's not what I expect. If I see an error message that is marked as being
logged by class T1, I would expect to find the corresponding logging
statement in class T1 or a superclass, not a subclass
but that's just a style thing...
Douglas E Wegscheid
Lead Technical Analyst, Whirlpool
if you want parameterized messages, use slf4j ;)
--
Thread.currentThread() isn't there until Java 5 (though new Throwable
().getStackTrace() works fine on 1.4.2).
a more serious problem: it doesn't work if you call getLogger() from a
method in a superclass, then instantiate a subclass of that
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.
On Tue, Jan
You missed what I'm trying to do. I'm defining a static logger such as
this:
public class MyClass {
private static final Logger myLogger = Logger.getLogger(MyClass.class);
}
But what I would like to do is this
public class MyClass {
private static final Logger myLogger = Logger.getLogger();
}
I've liked the log4j Logger except for two things. The first is that I have
to pass my class name to the logger when I get it, for example:
private static Logger myLogger = Logger.getLogger(MyClass.class);
This is fine but it is prone to cut and paste errors. A better solution is
to add the
On Jan 26, 2009, at 4:27 PM, Brian Hawkins wrote:
I've liked the log4j Logger except for two things. The first is
that I have
to pass my class name to the logger when I get it, for example:
private static Logger myLogger = Logger.getLogger(MyClass.class);
This is fine but it is prone to
10 matches
Mail list logo
