Ok, this would do it too.
The other way would it make nicer, but you are right it is not required absolutly. (One advantage would be that the parametrized version coulkd use a more efficient type of string processing)
Than we should do the isXXXEnabled tests propertly. Because the most logging is "fine", "finer" or "finest" and we sould avoid this in an working environment.
I'll do this next time.
Regards, Stefan
Oliver Zeigermann wrote:
I thought the standard way to handle this is to guard the log statements with checks if the log level is enabled like:
if (isFineEnabled()) logFine(anyObject1 + "any string" + anyObject2);
which already is possible with LoggerFacade. This would make the extension obsolete...
Oliver
On Thu, 25 Nov 2004 14:19:13 +0100, Stefan Lützkendorf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hello Oliver,
I would like to improve the LoggerFacade interface with methods like,
logFiner(String message, Object param1); logFiner(String message, Object param1, Object param2); logFine(String message, Object param1); ...
to avoid the frequently used calls like logFine(anyObject1 + "any string" + anyObject2);
This would reduce the overhead if logging is disabled.
Changing the interfaces before the first release would be good, I think. What do you think?
Regards, Stefan
-- Stefan Lützkendorf -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-- Stefan Lützkendorf -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
