Cleaner? You changed a plus sign to a comma and turned the concatenation from happening at compile time to runtime. Even if you could I would argue you shouldn’t.
Ralph > On Mar 10, 2020, at 7:10 AM, Gary Gregory <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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 >> >> >>
