As an end user of libraries, I much prefer when they stick to using log4j-api or slf4j-api instead of some annoying library-specific facade which requires even more configuration to set up in the end. As long as I can pull in log4j-api, log4j-core, and log4j-slf4j-impl, everything "just works" essentially across all my libraries and in house code. I understand that some libraries are old and stuck to commons-logging as it was the main facade at the time (e.g., in Spring Framework), but chances are that nowadays, at least one or more of your libraries are going to bring in log4j-api or slf4j-api anyways.
On 3 September 2017 at 14:22, Romain Manni-Bucau <rmannibu...@gmail.com> wrote: > Had a test using cdi integration but moving the level test reduced > execution time from ~1.4 to 1.25 (normalized numbers). It was ror millions > of calls but still worth it IMO. Log impl was indeed jul ;). > > > > Le 3 sept. 2017 20:16, "Thomas Vandahl" <t...@apache.org> a écrit : > > On 03.09.17 20:11, Romain Manni-Bucau wrote: > > On the perf thing: isXXXEnabled can be costly by itself - see my last > > commit. > > Could you please provide some numbers to this claim? > > Bye, Thomas. > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org > -- Matt Sicker <boa...@gmail.com>
