On Mon, Mar 9, 2020 at 11:10 AM Ralph Goers <[email protected]> wrote:
> Why would you want to do that? Most people seem to prefer getLogger() > while I prefer getLogger(MyClass.class). I can’t imagine why anyone would > want to dynamically construct a name like that and if they did, why > wouldn’t they just using StringBuilder? > I have a logger name root name in a constant like ROOT_LOGGER_NAME and right now I create a hierarchy like akin to this: loggerContext.getLogger(ROOT_LOGGER_NAME + ".client.request"); loggerContext.getLogger(ROOT_LOGGER_NAME + ".client.response"); loggerContext.getLogger(ROOT_LOGGER_NAME + ".server.request"); loggerContext.getLogger(ROOT_LOGGER_NAME + ".server.response"); This could all be clearer if the API was a String... instead of a String. loggerContext.getLogger(ROOT_LOGGER_NAME, CLIENT, REQUEST); loggerContext.getLogger(ROOT_LOGGER_NAME, CLIENT, RESPONSE); loggerContext.getLogger(ROOT_LOGGER_NAME, SERVER, REQUEST); loggerContext.getLogger(ROOT_LOGGER_NAME, SERVER, RESPONSE ); Gary > Ralph > > > On Mar 9, 2020, at 7:51 AM, Gary Gregory <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Hi All: > > > > Any thought for or against adding the API 'getLogger(String... name)' > which > > would build a hierarchical logger name. These would be equivalent: > > > > - getLogger("com.a.b.c") > > - getLogger("com", "a", "b", "c") > > > > Gary > > >
