Torsten,
We have noticed that over 95% of log statements have zero, one or two
parameters. The additional two methods (per logging level) that have
been introduced in 1.3 and UGLI offer a convenient alternative to the
if(logger.isXXXEnabled() { logger.xxx("some txt"+arg1+"following txt") }
pattern.
Thus, instead of writing
if(logger.isDebugEnabled() {
logger.debug("New temperature is "+newT+" degrees");
}
you can write
logger.debug("New temperature is {} degrees", newT);
I personally typed in several hundred such parameterized log
statements with relative ease. Existing statements can also be
converted with ease.
For the remaining 5% of the cases with 3 or more parameters, the
if(l.isDebugEnabled) is still availalbe.
It's a pity that you should consider parameterized messages as a
hack. Please do not hesitate to continue this discussion on
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Best regards,
On 2005-01-07 10:30:11, Torsten Curdt wrote:
> As I already said: I don't see the point of this parameter stuff. IMO
> this only leads to mixing of concepts. Some people will use the "{}"
> some won't. To be honest I would not feel very happy with UGLI since
> IMHO this interface is only half-backed. Sorry.
--
Ceki Gülcü
The complete log4j manual: http://www.qos.ch/log4j/
