Hello Scott,
Thanks. Sounds like using transient also addresses Mark's comment
about serialization. So, would the consensus be the following?
transient final private static Logger logger =
Logger.getLogger{MyClass.class.getName());
Jake
Thursday, July 18, 2002, 4:23:30 PM, you wrote:
KST> I usually add transient - just for good measure
KST> -----Original Message-----
KST> From: Jacob Kjome [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
KST> Sent: Thursday, July 18, 2002 2:18 PM
KST> To: Log4J Users List
KST> Subject: Re: log4j programming question...
KST> Can someone please comment on my question below?
KST> thanks,
KST> Jake
KST> Wednesday, July 17, 2002, 3:26:19 PM, you wrote:
JK>> Hi,
JK>> I have seen some cases where loggers are defined as "public", some as
JK>> "protected", some as "private", and some as the default package level
JK>> visibility. Along the same lines, I have seen cases where loggers are
JK>> defined as "static" and others non-static. I have also seen some
JK>> cases where the logger is defined as "final".
JK>> What would be the "best practice" here? Would it depend on the
JK>> application? Is there an advantage for subclasses to have access to
JK>> the parent class logger as those defined as "public" and "protected"
JK>> would be visible to subclases? Shouldn't subclasses be using their
JK>> own loggers?
JK>> I would think that the following would be the best practice:
JK>> final private static Logger logger =
KST> Logger.getLogger{MyClass.class.getName());
JK>> Is this the case? I'm really just trying to get some validation here.
JK>> Are there any disadvantages to the above?
JK>> Thanks,
JK>> Jake
--
Best regards,
Jacob mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
