Florian,
According to Effective Java the Serializable mechanism (like other
"marker interfaces") has problems and so to avoid "infecting" all
implementations (requiring them to actually implement Serializable)
you're supposed to just mark the implementation classes.
The code-analysis tool is right in the sense you could end up using
a Logger implementation which is *not* serializable (I believe Logback
is). You can either depend on Logback directly or ask the code analysis
tool to suppress the warning for this field.
Gili
On 01/02/2012 9:32 AM, [email protected] wrote:
Hi all,
In the FAQ of SLF4J it says "As of SLF4J version 1.5.3, logger
instances survive serialization". For me this means that all SLF4J
loggers are serializable. But only the Logger implementations are
Serializable "not the interface".
Due to this my code analysis criticizes "Non-transient
non-serializable instance field in serializable class" for the logger.
So my question is why does the logger interface not extend
Serializable? From the FAQ i understand that it is part of the
contract of a Logger implementation that it is serializable.
Best regards,
Florian
_______________________________________________
slf4j-user mailing list
[email protected]
http://mailman.qos.ch/mailman/listinfo/slf4j-user
_______________________________________________
slf4j-user mailing list
[email protected]
http://mailman.qos.ch/mailman/listinfo/slf4j-user
