Thorbjørn Ravn Andersen wrote: > Ceki Gulcu skrev den 25-08-2008 22:18: >> If your are uncomfortable with incorporating XLogger in the instrumentation >> code, that's fine with me. However, if you are uncomfortable with XLogger by >> itself, regardless of instrumentation, then I welcome any constructive >> criticism >> you might have, as would, I am sure, Ralph Goers. Do not hesitate to start a >> new >> thread if you do voice criticism. >> >> > I am thinking this over as I am trying to identify which problem it is > that is being solved, instead of just seeing the tool.
Calling a logger when entering a method or when exiting it is not uncommon. XLogger caters for that use case by extending the methods available in the Logger interface. Isn't the instrumentation code under discussion also a variation of the aforementioned use case? [snip] > I believe so. The reason why slf4j API does not have to be present is > because it is not needed inside the agent to add the java snippets, but > it must be available to the program being instrumented to be able to > resolve the instrumented byte code in the classloader. This to me means > that either a full slfj4 + backend must be provided or the usual > responsibilities must be obeyed by the deployer. > > The agent needs javaassist to run at all. > OK, thank you for explaining the difference. -- Ceki Gülcü _______________________________________________ dev mailing list dev@slf4j.org http://www.slf4j.org/mailman/listinfo/dev