I *think* this is documented in the logging guide online. --jason
marc fleury wrote: >|Its not a question of the expense of log.debug vs log.trace here. >|Both are used under a guard in this code and will only incur the >|cost of generating the log message string if logging is requested. > >Ok so we don't create the Strings. > >|The issue is that a lot of useful information is issued using >|debug level messages that are not related to method invocations. >|Using trace vs debug is simply a question of isolating logging messages >|that are issued O(N) or higher with respect to method invocation vs debug >|msgs that may be verbose, but are still O(1) with respect to method >|invocations. Basically, if I am running with a filter that allows DEBUG >|level messages, the log should not fill up because I run a trival stateless >|session test with 100,000 method invocations. If I run with TRACE >|enabled, I might be getting 1Gb of data detailing the activity at the >|method invocation level. > >This is unclear. Can you explain this again? Is trace something like a >"stack trace" where we follow one method invocation and see what goes on? >If so that is useful, please help me understand what you are saying above. >Keep it simple please. > >marcf > > >_______________________________________________ >Jboss-development mailing list >[EMAIL PROTECTED] >https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jboss-development > _______________________________________________ Jboss-development mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jboss-development
