[slf4j-dev] [Bug 257] Recommended Logger Name

[bugzilla-daemon at qos.ch]

http://bugzilla.slf4j.org/show_bug.cgi?id=257

--- Comment #2 from Irv Rabin <ipr1118 at gmail.com> 2012-05-09 20:47:43 CEST ---
Thanks Joachim, I expected a response like that. :)

Well, logging is not only "to collect information to help developers fix the
problem". That is debugging. Only logging messages with level DEBUG fit into
your definition. Well, perhaps TRACE to a certain degree. 

Logging is to collect data about a running process so the latter can be
analyzed later. For example, a big commercial billing application may want to
have a log where the whole billing process can be traced and reconstructed. 

The application may have thousand of classes. Messages relevant to one billing
cycle that logically belong to the same logger could be produced by any of the
classes comprising the application. The logger could be defined for a whole
subsystem (such as Billing). Then, as the application can be divided into
subcomponents, the logging could be distributed into subloggers
(Billing.Notification, Billing.Payment, etc), so the dots would still show
hierarchy and configuration with inheritance of settings could be honored. But
whenever the system is composed of tens of thousands of classes, using class
names as logger name is simply insane.

Like a motorboat driver has a very vague idea how to drive an aircraft carrier
ship, in the same way recommendations that are sound for small Proof-Of-Concept
projects, are inapplicable to big commercial applications. That's why I believe
that recommendation of using class names as logger names should be limited to
small pilot projects, where the developer is the primary user of his own code.

-- 
Configure bugmail: http://bugzilla.slf4j.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the assignee for the bug.