Is this really an issue? I thought category instances were simply
references (pointers) to the hierarchy hash table entry. And if you use
static categories, for that matter, you have only one per class.
Static members also minimize hash lookup.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Scott M Stark [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Wednesday, April 04, 2001 6:12 PM
> To: LOG4J Users Mailing List
> Subject: Re: Memory footprint question re large-scale J2EE deployment
>
>
> You don't have to follow the pattern of having a Category instance per
> class. I use one Category per package and sometimes one Category
> for a logical grouping of packages.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "L. Scott Emmons" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Wednesday, April 04, 2001 3:11 PM
> Subject: Memory footprint question re large-scale J2EE deployment
>
>
> > Was curious if anyone has measured the memory footprint of
> log4j. Some
> > of our architecture folks are worried that having 100's of
> classes (EJB,
> > Servlet, etc) instantiating log4j objects will be a
> problem. We plan on
> > using the JMSAppender, if that makes any significant difference.
> >
> > I'm curious how other folks have implemented log4j in large-scale
> > projects. Do you instantiate log4j objects in each class?
> >
> > Thanks,
> > -Scott
> >
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
