Russ,
Why not just use:
Public class Foo {
public void bar() {
ComponentLogger logger = CustomProcessor.getLogger();
logger.warn( “This is a warning!” );
}
}
Perhaps I’m missing something - or perhaps you made things simpler than they
really are for demonstration purposes?
Thanks
-Mark
> On Dec 8, 2020, at 4:54 PM, Russell Bateman <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Because it's so onerous to pass a reference to the logger down through
> parameters lists, I thought I might try using Java's thread-local store. I
> haven't been using it for anything else either, but I thought I'd start. For
> now, the logger is the only thing that tempts me. In past lives as a
> web-application writer, I used it quite a bit.
>
> My question is, "Does this offend anyone who cares to give an opinion?" If
> there's a reason not to do this, I'll go to the effort (and muddy my
> parameter lists). Otherwise, I'll give it a try.
>
>
> public class CustomProcessor extends AbstractProcessor
> {
> private static ThreadLocal< ComponentLog > tls = new ThreadLocal<>();
>
> public static ThreadLocal< ComponentLog > getTls() { return tls; }
>
> @Override
> public void onTrigger( final ProcessContext context, final ProcessSession
> session ) throws ProcessException
> {
> // grab the logger and store it on the thread...
> tls.set( getLogger() );
>
> ...
>
> // we've finished using it--dump the logger...
> tls.remove();
> }
> }
>
> public class Foo
> {
> public void bar()
> {
> ComponentLog logger = CustomProcessor.getTls().get();
> logger.warn( "This is a warning!" );
> }
> }
>
> Thanks for any opinions, statements of best practice, cat calls, sneers, etc.
>
> ;-)
>
> Russ
