Skip to main content
24 events
when toggle format what by license comment
Mar 21, 2022 at 19:49 vote accept Aitch
Mar 13, 2015 at 2:32 comment added Aitch I'd like to thank everybody for your answers, but now I vote for close, because it's 'primarily opinion-based' I think. Writing low-level C++ stuff logging to std::cerr is ccc and fine for me, but higher level server web-apps logging events is not, for me (opinion-based). Maybe the discussion would have might been a bit shorter if I had mentioned non-ccc logging (sorry for that).
Mar 12, 2015 at 23:48 comment added Aitch @D.W. the 'possible duplicate' talks about 'heavy data logging' which means debugging by logging to me or any fact of producing that much logging data, that it is mentioned in the question. I would expect any 'buffered/batch log' as answer, but I gave a simple and clear example. And I hope it's not too dismissive if I don't want to accept any explanation by using the MVC-Pattern. MVC was the first pattern everyone knows I think and the last pattern professionals use. If I edit my question to 'business logic logging' there might be some people complaining, that now it's something different.
Mar 12, 2015 at 16:33 history edited Robert Harvey CC BY-SA 3.0
Commentary belongs in comments.
Mar 12, 2015 at 9:04 comment added Laurent LA RIZZA How do you combine "tests are simpler" and "more tests"? If initializing a NullLogger is such a pain, maybe you should pursue to factor out commonalities in the setup code of your classes.
Mar 11, 2015 at 22:21 comment added D.W. "is not an answer to me" or "the answer is not satisfying" is a bit dismissive. You might ponder what specifically is unsatisfying (what requirement do you have that wasn't met by that answer? what specifically is unique about your question?), then edit your question to make sure that this requirement/unique aspect is explained clearly. The purpose is to get you to edit your question to improve it to make it clearer and more focused, not to ask for boilerplate asserting that your question is different/shouldn't be closed without justification why. (You can also comment on the other answer.)
Mar 11, 2015 at 20:49 answer added Paul Nikonowicz timeline score: 0
Mar 11, 2015 at 17:46 history edited Aitch CC BY-SA 3.0
added 261 characters in body
Mar 11, 2015 at 17:35 vote accept Aitch
Mar 21, 2022 at 19:49
Mar 11, 2015 at 17:35 vote accept Aitch
Mar 11, 2015 at 17:35
Mar 11, 2015 at 17:35 vote accept Aitch
Mar 11, 2015 at 17:35
Mar 11, 2015 at 16:33 answer added anaximander timeline score: 6
Mar 11, 2015 at 16:16 answer added z0mbi3 timeline score: -4
Mar 11, 2015 at 15:20 history tweeted twitter.com/#!/StackProgrammer/status/575677662871552000
Mar 11, 2015 at 15:05 answer added Laurent LA RIZZA timeline score: 20
Mar 11, 2015 at 15:02 comment added Mark Rogers @Aitch - Long story short, I would say the abtraction level of a logger is low, so I wouldn't worry about it violating SRP. So no a logger call, doesn't necessarily violate SRP.
Mar 11, 2015 at 14:58 comment added Aitch @MarkRogers thank you for sharing that interesting article. Uncle Bob says in 'Clean Code', that a nice SRP component is dealing with other components on the same level of abstraction. For me that explanation is easier to understand since the context can also be too big. But I cannot answer the question, because what is the context or abstraction leve of a logger?
Mar 11, 2015 at 14:34 comment added Mark Rogers How do you determine how coarse or fine-grained a 'responsibility' should be when using the single responsibility principle?
Mar 11, 2015 at 13:57 review Close votes
Mar 23, 2015 at 3:04
Mar 11, 2015 at 11:49 answer added grahamparks timeline score: 69
Mar 11, 2015 at 11:09 answer added Oliver Weiler timeline score: 7
Mar 11, 2015 at 10:43 comment added Aitch I've already read it and the answer is not satisfying, sorry.
Mar 11, 2015 at 10:32 comment added gnat possible duplicate of Design patterns to avoiding breaking the SRP while performing heavy data logging
Mar 11, 2015 at 10:29 history asked Aitch CC BY-SA 3.0