Logging Class - Instance or Static

[=?Utf-8?B?Sko=?=]

I have a logging component that I will access in other assemblies. So it was
brought up to me that I should pass an instance around to these components
instead of just making the logging class static. If I make it static I
wouldn't need to
pass an instance around. What is your take on this?

[Tom Spink]

JJ wrote:

I have a logging component that I will access in other assemblies. So it
was brought up to me that I should pass an instance around to these
components instead of just making the logging class static. If I make it
static I wouldn't need to
pass an instance around. What is your take on this?

Hi,

An important decision, and it depends on your needs. Does your class need
to retain state? How complicated is it? How memory-hungry is it?

--
Tom Spink
University of Edinburgh

[=?Utf-8?B?Sko=?=]

Its a pretty simple class that will send emails, write to eventlog or to a
file. My thinking is if I pass an instance around and it gets passed down a
chain of about 3 classes then I will have multiple refs to my logging class
and I am wondering if that is the proper coding technique to be using here?

Does your class need
to retain state?

No my class doesn't need to retain state but if I make it static I can just
refer to directly from any where without having refs to it.

"Tom Spink" wrote:

JJ wrote:

I have a logging component that I will access in other assemblies. So it
was brought up to me that I should pass an instance around to these
components instead of just making the logging class static. If I make it
static I wouldn't need to
pass an instance around. What is your take on this?

Hi,

An important decision, and it depends on your needs. Does your class need
to retain state? How complicated is it? How memory-hungry is it?

--
Tom Spink
University of Edinburgh

[wfairl]

On Jun 27, 10:30 am, JJ <J...@discussio ns.microsoft.co mwrote:

I have a logging component that I will access in other assemblies. So it was
brought up to me that I should pass an instance around to these components
instead of just making the logging class static. If I make it static I
wouldn't need to
pass an instance around. What is your take on this?

Have you seen the Microsoft Enterprise ApplicationBloc ks? There is a
logging block that should meet your needs. You might want to either
use this instead or model your component after it (the source code is
provided).

http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa480464.aspx

[=?Utf-8?B?TWFydGluIw==?=]

I would recomend to use a Singleton class here.
This means a static GetInstance method which only instanciates the class
once and gives this instance back.

"JJ" wrote:

I have a logging component that I will access in other assemblies. So it was
brought up to me that I should pass an instance around to these components
instead of just making the logging class static. If I make it static I
wouldn't need to
pass an instance around. What is your take on this?

[Bruce Wood]

I would check out the Microsoft Enterprise Application Block first.

If it doesn't suit your needs, or you don't have time to study it,
then I would side with Martin: create a logging instance class, then
create a static method that returns a (singleton) instance of it. I
would also create a logging interface and have the static method
return that type.

The logic behind this is that you can then (if you want to) create
other logging classes that implement the same interface but log in
different ways, and swap them out with a minimum of fuss.

On Jun 27, 8:20 am, Martin# <Mart...@discus sions.microsoft .comwrote:

I would recomend to use a Singleton class here.
This means a static GetInstance method which only instanciates the class
once and gives this instance back.

"JJ" wrote:

I have a logging component that I will access in other assemblies. So it was
brought up to me that I should pass an instance around to these components
instead of just making the logging class static. If I make it static I
wouldn't need to
pass an instance around. What is your take on this?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

[=?Utf-8?B?Sko=?=]

So in using a singleton I am going to call it directly like so,
singletonClass. Instance().meth od;
and with using a singleton I don't have to pass it around from class to
class, I can just call it as above, correct?

"Martin#" wrote:

I would recomend to use a Singleton class here.
This means a static GetInstance method which only instanciates the class
once and gives this instance back.

"JJ" wrote:

I have a logging component that I will access in other assemblies. So it was
brought up to me that I should pass an instance around to these components
instead of just making the logging class static. If I make it static I
wouldn't need to
pass an instance around. What is your take on this?

[=?Utf-8?B?TWFydGluIw==?=]

Hello,

A singleton method looks normaly like this.

private static MyClass instance = null;
public static MyClass GetInstance()
{
if(instance==nu ll)
{
instance = new MyClass(); //Only done once
}
// You can do other stuff here
// For example calling some Init methods
return instance;
}

And will be called like this:
Your.Full.Names pace.MyClass myreferencetomy class =
Your.Full.Names pace.MyClass.Ge tInstance();

Hop it helps!

All the best,

Martin
"JJ" wrote:

So in using a singleton I am going to call it directly like so,
singletonClass. Instance().meth od;
and with using a singleton I don't have to pass it around from class to
class, I can just call it as above, correct?

"Martin#" wrote:

I would recomend to use a Singleton class here.
This means a static GetInstance method which only instanciates the class
once and gives this instance back.

"JJ" wrote:

I have a logging component that I will access in other assemblies. So it was
brought up to me that I should pass an instance around to these components
instead of just making the logging class static. If I make it static I
wouldn't need to
pass an instance around. What is your take on this?

[Jon Skeet [C# MVP]]

Martin# <Ma****@discuss ions.microsoft. comwrote:

A singleton method looks normaly like this.

private static MyClass instance = null;
public static MyClass GetInstance()
{
if(instance==nu ll)
{
instance = new MyClass(); //Only done once
}
// You can do other stuff here
// For example calling some Init methods
return instance;
}

Except that's not thread-safe. It's simpler to use a static
initializer.

See http://pobox.com/~skeet/csharp/singleton.html

--
Jon Skeet - <sk***@pobox.co m>
http://www.pobox.com/~skeet Blog: http://www.msmvps.com/jon.skeet
If replying to the group, please do not mail me too

[=?Utf-8?B?TWFydGluIw==?=]

Good point for the concept!

But what I meant was alittle more custom specific.
For example if the sender is passed as a parameter, there would be the write
place to forward it to the accurate method.

All the best,

Martin

"Jon Skeet [C# MVP]" wrote:

Martin# <Ma****@discuss ions.microsoft. comwrote:

A singleton method looks normaly like this.

private static MyClass instance = null;
public static MyClass GetInstance()
{
if(instance==nu ll)
{
instance = new MyClass(); //Only done once
}
// You can do other stuff here
// For example calling some Init methods
return instance;
}

Except that's not thread-safe. It's simpler to use a static
initializer.

See http://pobox.com/~skeet/csharp/singleton.html

--
Jon Skeet - <sk***@pobox.co m>
http://www.pobox.com/~skeet Blog: http://www.msmvps.com/jon.skeet
If replying to the group, please do not mail me too