Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.java.programmer > #12815
| From | Robert Klemme <shortcutter@googlemail.com> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | comp.lang.java.programmer |
| Subject | Re: Question about loggers |
| Date | 2012-03-09 20:29 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <9rv402Fm7U1@mid.individual.net> (permalink) |
| References | (5 earlier) <29668555.311.1331223311031.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@vbbfv2> <jjase9$fo2$1@dont-email.me> <17863687.969.1331305893320.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@vblb5> <jjd8i2$475$1@news.albasani.net> <jjd93h$gp$1@dont-email.me> |
On 09.03.2012 16:54, markspace wrote: >> Robert Klemme wrote: >>> http://commons.apache.org/logging/guide.html >>> >>> Truth is that static loggers are recommended for application code; >>> only for library code they recommend against static loggers. > > By "application" do you mean JEE app or desktop app? It's not me! I am just quoting. Please read what they write. > Either way, I don't understand your assertion. Why would static vs. > instance make any difference in a library, assuming no shared or other > special classloaders are in use? Again: it's not my assertion. You were the one who brought up best practices from Apache Commons: On 08.03.2012 19:05, markspace wrote: > Also be aware that while static loggers are common in Java in general, > instance loggers are recommended best practice according the the Apache > Commons website. I was just pointing out that what you claimed Apache Commons best practices is (instance loggers as _general_ best practice) is not what they are actually stating (instance loggers for _library code_). Cheers robert -- remember.guy do |as, often| as.you_can - without end http://blog.rubybestpractices.com/
Back to comp.lang.java.programmer | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar
Question about loggers Novice <novice@example..com> - 2012-03-07 21:52 +0000
Re: Question about loggers Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2012-03-07 17:16 -0500
Re: Question about loggers Novice <novice@example..com> - 2012-03-07 23:57 +0000
Re: Question about loggers Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2012-03-07 19:24 -0500
Re: Question about loggers Lew <noone@lewscanon.com> - 2012-03-08 07:22 -0800
Re: Question about loggers Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2012-03-08 10:27 -0500
Re: Question about loggers Lew <lewbloch@gmail.com> - 2012-03-08 11:58 -0800
Re: Question about loggers Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2012-03-08 15:49 -0500
Re: Question about loggers Robert Klemme <shortcutter@googlemail.com> - 2012-03-08 08:15 -0800
Re: Question about loggers markspace <-@.> - 2012-03-08 10:05 -0800
Re: Question about loggers Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2012-03-08 13:50 -0500
Re: Question about loggers Robert Klemme <shortcutter@googlemail.com> - 2012-03-09 07:11 -0800
Re: Question about loggers Lew <noone@lewscanon.com> - 2012-03-09 07:45 -0800
Re: Question about loggers markspace <-@.> - 2012-03-09 07:54 -0800
Re: Question about loggers Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2012-03-09 11:03 -0500
Re: Question about loggers markspace <-@.> - 2012-03-09 09:10 -0800
Re: Question about loggers Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2012-03-09 12:27 -0500
Re: Question about loggers Lew <lewbloch@gmail.com> - 2012-03-09 10:56 -0800
Re: Question about loggers Robert Klemme <shortcutter@googlemail.com> - 2012-03-09 20:29 +0100
Re: Question about loggers Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2012-03-09 11:04 -0500
Re: Question about loggers markspace <-@.> - 2012-03-09 09:14 -0800
Re: Question about loggers Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2012-03-09 12:22 -0500
Re: Question about loggers Lew <lewbloch@gmail.com> - 2012-03-09 10:58 -0800
Re: Question about loggers markspace <-@.> - 2012-03-07 15:21 -0800
Re: Question about loggers Novice <novice@example..com> - 2012-03-08 00:01 +0000
Re: Question about loggers Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2012-03-07 19:21 -0500
Re: Question about loggers Arved Sandstrom <asandstrom3minus1@eastlink.ca> - 2012-03-08 06:18 -0400
csiph-web