I agree Craig, I did NOT want to remove isXXXEnabled(). I should have said that...
> -----Original Message----- > From: Craig R. McClanahan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2002 10:59 AM > To: Jakarta Commons Developers List > Subject: RE: how should log levels work? [Was Re: [Logging] > default log level] > > > > > On Thu, 10 Jan 2002, Scott Sanders wrote: > > > Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2002 10:45:00 -0800 > > From: Scott Sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Reply-To: Jakarta Commons Developers List > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > To: Jakarta Commons Developers List <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Subject: RE: how should log levels work? [Was Re: [Logging] > default log > > level] > > > > Does this also remove the isInfoEnabled and isDebugEnabled? > > > > Please do *not* consider removing these. They are for > performance optimization. Consider: > > if (log.isDebugEnabled()) { > log.debug("Big " + "long " + "string " + "with " + > "lots " + "of " + "concatenations"); > } > > You definitely do *not* want to waste the time to do all the > string manipulations if the message is not going to be logged anyway. > > I'm OK on removing setLevel(), but do not see a problem with > getLevel(). Could someone expand on what concerns this might raise? > > Craig > > > -- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: > <mailto:commons-dev-> [EMAIL PROTECTED]> > For > additional commands, > e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
