DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL, BUT PLEASE POST YOUR BUG· RELATED COMMENTS THROUGH THE WEB INTERFACE AVAILABLE AT <http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34437>. ANY REPLY MADE TO THIS MESSAGE WILL NOT BE COLLECTED AND· INSERTED IN THE BUG DATABASE.
http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34437 ------- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2005-04-13 18:28 ------- Hi Peter, I'm a bit concerned about the fact that this implementation requires testing a boolean flag for each call to Log.isTraceEnabled or Log.trace. Testing a single boolean isn't too bad, but logging *is* supposed to be highly tuned. Yes, the current code *already* does this boolean testing - but I'm not sure I agree with it. An alternative would be to instead create a Log4J13Logger class which subclasses Log4JLogger and overrides the trace and isTraceEnabled methods. This should produce the same effect without needing a boolean flag - though it means modifying LogFactoryImpl to do the testing for log4j version instead (so it can select the correct Log wrapper class constructor to call). However if no-one else is concerned about the performance implications of an extra boolean test in isTraceEnabled, then your patch could certainly be applied as-is. If we stay with the current implementation, I think it would be a good idea to rename "is12" to "isPre13" or similar; I was confused at first by this variable name (not your fault, Peter!). -- Configure bugmail: http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the assignee for the bug, or are watching the assignee. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
