Re: [WebMacro-user] wm.log time stamp broken?

[<Web...@St...>]

On Tue, 4 Apr 2006, Keats Kirsch wrote:

| I have also been reading up on SLF4J, and I think I'm convinced that it is a
| better approach.  For me it's mainly because of the log interface, which seems
| more elegant and efficient..  They use formatted log messages which avoid
| having to guard your logging statements with level tests or build up strings
| that are never used.  I also like that the Log4J founder is behind it.

I don't think it's any more efficient as such. And for several 
log-systems, they will still have to wrap the actual loggers (unless the 
logging-system natively implement the interfaces, as log4j probably will 
do at some point).

The new "formatting methods" aren't all that fantastic in my opinion - as 
I understand it, you can't shove primitives (numbers, booleans) in there - 
and then you're back at unnecessary object-creation, or 
string-convertions, or the "wrapping if".
  The if (log.isDebugEnabled()) log.debug("lala"); semantics have never 
bothered me at all - i have macros/templates for all these anyway - and 
then I'm _sure_ that I won't create unnecessary objects or do conversions 
or concatenations.
  At any rate, I believe that these new methods will be incorporated in 
log4j too, soon, as they are a novel solution to the "wrapping ifs" - but 
not in all circumstance: log.trace("there are "+i+" items in the list"); 

But yes, definately something to consider! At any rate, one should do a 
overhaul of the entire logging strategy, cleaning up every log statement, 
re-evaluate the level at which the log-statement outputs (there are way to 
much at info level now - "trace" should be employed for most output), and 
use the decided-upon native loggers instead of implementing some 
inefficient wrapping or "containing" idea.

Regards,
Endre.