[slf4j-user] best practice for naming loggers?

[Rusty Wright]

In the log4j documentation they recommend "statically instantiating a logger in each class, with the logger name equal to the fully qualified name of the class."  For example,

   static Logger logger = Logger.getLogger(MyApp.class);

I've never understood why it's necessary to declare the logger static.  I've assumed/guessed that it is to reduce the number of calls to getLogger.

The slf4j documentation doesn't use static; for example,

   final Logger logger = LoggerFactory.getLogger(Wombat.class);

I've also wondered why everyone uses .class; I've been using this.getClass(); for example,

   private final transient Logger log = LoggerFactory.getLogger(this.getClass());

The advantage of that is that you never have to worry about changing that line; you can copy and paste it everywhere, and set up eclipse to automatically put that line in when you create a new class.

The reason I ask is that I read the article by Michael Glauche, "Logging with SLF4J and Guice", at http://glauche.de/2009/08/24/ and I don't see an advantage of his method over using this.getClass().

Using this.getClass() has worked for me, unless I need to use the logger in a static method, so I'm wondering if there is something I'm overlooking.

Thanks

-- 
0x2B | ~0x2b --  Hamlet