On Wed, 11 Dec 2002, Jerome Jacobsen wrote:
> Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2002 14:04:45 -0500
> From: Jerome Jacobsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Reply-To: Jakarta Commons Users List <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> To: Jakarta Commons Users List <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: RE: [Logging] Thread safety guaruntee of Log classes?
>
> Good. Then should't the Commons Logging API documentation example be like
> this:
>
> public class MyComponent {
> protected static Log log = LogFactory.getLog("my.component");
> . . .
>
> instead of like this
>
> public class MyComponent {
> protected Log log = LogFactory.getLog("my.component");
> . . .
>
> The first way is how Struts uses it and how I've always used Log4J's
> Category. I don't want a seperate Log instance for every instance of my
> classes. However if a Log implementation instance maintains state in an
> unsychronized way then I would need a seperate Log instance for each
> instance of my classes.
>
> What worries me is that the API documentation does not guarantee this type
> of thread-safety. I haven't investigated any of the other implementations
> to see if they are thread-safe, but would feel good if the Commons API
> required it (and examples implied it).
>
Declaring the Log variable static or not has zero effect on whether it is
threadsafe or not -- it only determines whether or not the Log instance is
shared across all instances of the declaring class.
Craig
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Scott Sanders [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > Sent: Wednesday, December 11, 2002 1:48 PM
> > To: Jakarta Commons Users List
> > Subject: RE: [Logging] Thread safety guaruntee of Log classes?
> >
> >
> > > I guessed that. However one should program to the API
> > > contract. One benefit of using the Commons Logging API
> > > wrapper layer was to allow switching implementations. If you
> > > are assuming thread safety as Struts seems to be, then
> > > switching to a non-thread safe implementation would break
> > > your application.
> > >
> > > So, is the contract of Log supposed to guarantee
> > > thread-safety? Despite what Struts assumes I'll assume no
> > > until I hear otherwise.
> > >
> >
> > No, commons-logging makes no guarantee of thread safety. It was not
> > intended to do so.
> >
> > The assumption that Struts makes, IMO, is a safe one. Using a logging
> > API that is not thread safe will break more than Struts :)
> >
> > Scott
> >
> > --
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> > <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > For additional commands, e-mail:
> > <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
>
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
