> > > The common practice (with almost any Java logging framework) is to have > your loggers as static final fields and using the class name as the logger > name (some logging frameworks even have static factory methods taking a > java.lang.Class<?> as "name"). > > Re. the common practice above, you won't generally inject loggers. > Guice (but not GIN AFAIK) has custom support for java.util.logging.Logger > and will inject them without the need for any configuration: > https://github.com/google/guice/wiki/BuiltInBindings#loggers Note that > this is only to remove some boilerplate, and Guice would inject a logger > whose name is the name of the class it's injected in (see 1 above re. the > common practice for naming loggers) >
I also think that the fact entering/exiting methods absent, pushes towards having a class name as the logger name's suffix. In conjunction with static factories, I can see how easy it is to build a hierarchy. As for GIN 3.0, it doesn't provide a default binding for *Logger.class*. I have another question about the Level of messages. If I use Logger during debug, which level is the most appropriate for messages, that usually go in stdout? -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "GWT Users" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/google-web-toolkit. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
