Finally some interesting numbers, and if (heaven forbid) this decision should be based on technical grounds, this is one of the first significant pieces to come up in this discussion.
Since I am quite unfamiliar with logging (I use loose coupling and tests instead ;), I took the opportunity to read http://logging.apache.org/log4j/2.x/performance.html Somehow the real-life results don't seem to match up with the advertising blurp on the log4j site. While it hardly surprises me, I was wondering if anyone actually knows why? Kristian 2012/12/12 Stephen Connolly <stephen.alan.conno...@gmail.com>: > The consistent times (i.e. repeated runs after discarding the first) are: > > 3.0.4: 1min18sec > logback: 1min13sec > log4j2: 1min34sec > > The second test was building GIT hash > 85dd6e37456d30d2661e10b044efa9036c528023 of jszip-maven-plugin (@jszip.org) > with the following command line: > > mvn -o -X clean verify -DskipTests -Dinvoker.skip > > [Testing heavy logging] > > 3.0.4: 12.1sec > logback: 12.2sec > log4j2: 12.5sec --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org
