http://bugzilla.slf4j.org/show_bug.cgi?id=13
------- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-02-06 15:09 ------- (In reply to comment #11) > Boris writes: > > > For x4juli there is no problem, neither whith or without the > > patch. x4juli generates LocationInformation just and only when the > > user configures the Formatter to do so. (Ceki: You will remember that > > feature, think of PatternLayout :-) > > How does the patch *not* impact the generation of caller information > in the x4juli case? As I understand it, there would be an > impact. Peter's patch would cause caller information to be generation > for every log call regardless of what PatternFormatter's lazy caller > inferring. > > My proposal is to apply Peter's patch to JDK14LoggerAdapter for use > with SLF4J's binding for vanilla JDK logging but *not* for > x4juli. X4juli should have its own copy of JDK14LoggerAdapter. > > Does the above make sense? Sound reasonable? For x4juli look at http://svn.berlios.de/viewcvs/x4juli/trunk/src/java/org/x4juli/X4JuliLogger.java?view=markup x4juli does not use the JDK14LoggerAdapter, it does not use any wrapper class for SLF4J or JCL at all. It is a native implementation of their interfaces. So: Everything changed in the o.s.Logger Interface will cause changes in x4juli, everything changend in the *Adapater will not affect x4juli at all. So your argumentation is OK, Peters patch can be applied. I just give my +0 because users with their own propietary Formatter will have an performance impact. All "plain java.util.logging with no extension" users will have an advantage with the patch. -- Configure bugmail: http://bugzilla.slf4j.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the assignee for the bug, or are watching the assignee. _______________________________________________ dev mailing list [email protected] http://slf4j.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
