I’m wondering if perhaps slf4j could/should handle unwrapping Guice AOP
_enhanced_ classes when creating Logger instances?
Some code simply can not use static class references and has to use
obj.getClass() to configure a Logger instance. This can however result in ugly
Guice turds in the logger name if the class was enhanced, for example:
com.whatever.EventPublisherImpl$$EnhancerByGuice$$
… instead of what is generally preferable:
com.whatever.EventPublisherImpl
The AOP stuff here is an impl detail and IMO should leak out into logging
context.
I’m wondering if there is a simple/elegant way to handle this in the slf4j-api
(and become generally transparent to applications) or if the only good option
is to leave it up to applications and then use a custom factory facade like
this to unwrap:
<snip>
public class Loggers
{
private static final String GUICE_ENHANCED = "$$EnhancerByGuice$$";
private static boolean isEnhancedSubclass(final Class type) {
return type.getName().endsWith(GUICE_ENHANCED);
}
public static Logger getLogger(final Class type) {
checkNotNull(type);
if (isEnhancedSubclass(type)) {
return LoggerFactory.getLogger(type.getSuperclass());
}
return LoggerFactory.getLogger(type);
}
public static Logger getLogger(final Object obj) {
checkNotNull(obj);
return getLogger(obj.getClass());
}
public static Logger getLogger(final String name) {
return LoggerFactory.getLogger(name);
}
}
</snip>
I had considered some sort of magic trickery by adding a facade static binding
and then somehow delegating to a real binding, but all of that sounds just too
complex.
Anyone have any thoughts?
—jason
_______________________________________________
slf4j-user mailing list
[email protected]
http://mailman.qos.ch/mailman/listinfo/slf4j-user
