Users can just declare a transient field and access it through a helper method that checks for null and initializes it if required. I suspect that this is already how people handle serialization of non-static Logger fields at the moment or otherwise they would see errors when (de)serializing their class...
On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 8:00 AM, Gary Gregory <[email protected]> wrote: > If it's really 50%, then yeah, that's suspicious. I'd like to hear if > Ralph or Remko have any insights here. > > Gary > > On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 3:04 PM, Matt Sicker <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Most people use a static field to store the Logger, so most use cases >> don't require serialization. For instance fields, it might work better to >> declare it transient, and in that case, our implementation of Logger should >> not be Serializable at all. Otherwise, there are ways to serialize >> everything, but the way it looks, that will require making over 50% of the >> code base Serializable which doesn't smell right to me. >> >> On 14 October 2015 at 16:54, Gary Gregory <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> It would be a neat trick to only use the logger name for ser/deser. But >>> a logger only exists in a LC, so how would you re-create the Logger object. >>> LogManager.getLogger(String) can't account for the message factory for >>> example. Would knowing the class within which the static Logger resides be >>> enough to know which LC to use? I do not see how :-( I think we need >>> Ralph's insight here. >>> >>> The alternative would be... to recommend that all Logger declarations be >>> transient? That does not seen realistic, especially accounting for code you >>> cannot change. >>> >>> Gary >>> >>> On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 2:48 PM, Matt Sicker <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> Perhaps besides a particular LoggerContext. I have an idea on how to >>>> significantly simplify the serialization of Logger, and if we can simply >>>> unserialize it based purely on its name, then that would save a lot of >>>> trouble. I don't remember if we've discussed this idea in the past, but I >>>> think this would be the best way to implement serialization in Logger. I >>>> wouldn't want to pass a Logger over the wire and clobber a possibly >>>> different configuration already in memory at the time, for instance. >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Matt Sicker <[email protected]> >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> E-Mail: [email protected] | [email protected] >>> Java Persistence with Hibernate, Second Edition >>> <http://www.manning.com/bauer3/> >>> JUnit in Action, Second Edition <http://www.manning.com/tahchiev/> >>> Spring Batch in Action <http://www.manning.com/templier/> >>> Blog: http://garygregory.wordpress.com >>> Home: http://garygregory.com/ >>> Tweet! http://twitter.com/GaryGregory >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> Matt Sicker <[email protected]> >> > > > > -- > E-Mail: [email protected] | [email protected] > Java Persistence with Hibernate, Second Edition > <http://www.manning.com/bauer3/> > JUnit in Action, Second Edition <http://www.manning.com/tahchiev/> > Spring Batch in Action <http://www.manning.com/templier/> > Blog: http://garygregory.wordpress.com > Home: http://garygregory.com/ > Tweet! http://twitter.com/GaryGregory >
