On 01.02.2012 17:01, cowwoc wrote:
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.
I was not aware of the discussion in " Effective Java". I'll look it
up. Thank you.
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.
Depending directly on logback would not be a good idea. Configuring
the code analysis tool to suppress serialization warnings for all
logger fields *one by one* is possible but may entail a lot of
work. Ideally, the code analysis tool should allow ignoring
serialization of logger fields.
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".
That is correct. While the Logger interface is not marked as
Serializable, all Logger implementations shipping with SLF4J
(slf4j-jdk14, slf4j-log4j12, slf4j-simple,...) as well the
implementation shipping in logback-classic are Serializable.
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.
Good question. As Gili mentioned, the idea was to allow the freedom for
other Logger implementations to be non-serializable. Admittedly, this
contradicts the FAQ which states that "As of SLF4J version 1.5.3, logger
instances survive serialization."
To make a long story short, I dare not touch/modify the signature of
org.slf4j.Logger for reasons of backward compatibility.
Best regards,
Florian
--
Ceki
http://twitter.com/#!/ceki
_______________________________________________
slf4j-user mailing list
[email protected]
http://mailman.qos.ch/mailman/listinfo/slf4j-user
