http://bugzilla.slf4j.org/show_bug.cgi?id=13
------- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-04-19 16:08 ------- I am using SLF4J in an open source project (QuickFIX/J -- www.quickfixengine.org). QuickFIX/J is a library itself and the end users will select which logging engine they prefer to use. After upgrading from SLF4J 1.0rc5 to 1.0 I encounted the code discussed in this issue. I find the rationale for the current implementation very questionable and I request reconsideration of this implementation decision in future versions of SLF4J. As noted in the discussion on the issue, the overhead of the caller identification is optional at the JDK logging level by writing a simple custom Handler or Formatter implementation (or using a custom LogRecord). With the existing SLFJ adapter implementation, the overhead is forced on advanced JDK logging users even with custom logging support classes. I'm concerned that by using SLF4J to give my users more logging options I am also removing performance-related choices for my JDK logging users. -- Configure bugmail: http://bugzilla.slf4j.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the assignee for the bug, or are watching the assignee. _______________________________________________ dev mailing list [email protected] http://slf4j.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
