Vincent Massol wrote: > Hi, > > I wanted to see if we could move our LogEnabled lifecycle phase > to a > Logging component. I think it's not going to work since this means > injecting a LoggingFactory/LoggingManager component and you need to > call getLogger(this.getClass()) to get access to the Logger which > is > awkward. > > What I propose: > > 1) Use SLF4J (drop the slf4j-log4j jar in our WEB-INF/lib so that > SLF4J uses log4j by default) > 2) Drop the JCL/JUL/LOG4j SLF4J legacy jars in our WEB-INF/lib too > and exclude the JCL/JUL/LOG4J jars from our poms so that all third > party logs go to our logging system > 3) Non component code should use a SLF4J's LoggerFactory directly > > 4a) Keep LogEnabled and AbstractLogEnabled for our components > or > 4b) Automatically inject a Logger and a ComponentManager when there > are fields with these types in a component class. > > I like 4b) for its simplicity but I'm worried by the "magical" > aspect > of it. But... Why do we need 4 at all?

Vincent Massol wrote: > On May 13, 2009, at 5:30 PM, Sergiu Dumitriu wrote: > >> Vincent Massol wrote: >>> Hi, >>> >>> I wanted to see if we could move our LogEnabled lifecycle phase >>> to a >>> Logging component. I think it's not going to work since this >>> means >>> injecting a LoggingFactory/LoggingManager component and you >>> need to >>> call getLogger(this.getClass()) to get access to the Logger >>> which >>> is >>> awkward. >>> >>> What I propose: >>> >>> 1) Use SLF4J (drop the slf4j-log4j jar in our WEB-INF/lib so >>> that >>> SLF4J uses log4j by default) >>> 2) Drop the JCL/JUL/LOG4j SLF4J legacy jars in our WEB-INF/lib >>> too >>> and exclude the JCL/JUL/LOG4J jars from our poms so that all >>> third >>> party logs go to our logging system >>> 3) Non component code should use a SLF4J's LoggerFactory >>> directly >>> >>> 4a) Keep LogEnabled and AbstractLogEnabled for our components >>> or >>> 4b) Automatically inject a Logger and a ComponentManager when >>> there >>> are fields with these types in a component class. >>> >>> I like 4b) for its simplicity but I'm worried by the "magical" >>> aspect >>> of it. >> But... Why do we need 4 at all? > You mean use a static and don't do IOC? > > I don't like it it has all the problems of static. > Why not just have a plain field, like: final Logger logger = LoggerFactory.getLogger(Wombat.class); Is the logger a component? It's just plain logging, we don't need to go that deep. IOC is fine where it's useful, but here it's just overhead IMO.