[slf4j-dev] svn commit: r1307 - slf4j/trunk/slf4j-site/src/site/pages

[Ceki Gulcu]

Thorbjoern Ravn Andersen wrote:
> Ceki Gulcu skrev:
>>
>> See http://slf4j.org/faq.html#declared_static
>> The official stance is that there is no official stance. :-)
> If I understand the link correctly the primary reason for recommending 
> "not static" is to allow repository selectors to work with logback?

Hmm, I would not word it like that. Static loggers are an issue only for shared 
libraries which in practice are not such a big deal.

> Do you have benchmark figures already for the overhead of creating a 
> logger for each object?

You surely know the answer to that. Hint: what is the difference between static 
fields and instance fields referencing the very same object, in this case the 
same logger?

> Am I right in assuming that the logback mechanism for looking up loggers 
> is faster than in log4j?  There must be a reason for the original 
> recommandation :)

The reason for the original recommendation was mainly related to serialization 
which SLF4J did not support in earlier versions. Current SLF4J version support 
logger serialization so having loggers as a instance variables is no longer a 
problem.

Performance between static and instance loggers comes into play if you 
instantiate many (as in > 100'000) instances of the same class.

HTH,

-- 
Ceki Gülcü
Logback: The reliable, generic, fast and flexible logging framework for Java.
http://logback.qos.ch