Hi Ralph, Have you seen the new Profiler implementation? I found it really useful.
Regardless of whether its your version or the one in logback, I agree that placing such code in slf4j-extension (or whatever) instead of logback is a very good idea. Anyway, I'd be happy to look at your timing methods. You might want to enter a bug report so that this does not fall through the cracks. Ralph Goers wrote: > I have a related question. I have built timing methods somewhat similar > to the StopWatch in logback. It seems more appropriate to me that these > be in SLF4J than logback since they really don't rely on any particular > logger implementation. I'd be happy to provide my version of these for > you to review if you have an interest. > > Ralph > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >> http://bugzilla.slf4j.org/show_bug.cgi?id=86 >> >> >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: >> >> What |Removed |Added >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >> Status|NEW |ASSIGNED >> >> >> >> >> ------- Comment #2 from [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-06-03 22:18 ------- >> Will look into this after 1.5.1 is released. >> >> >> > _______________________________________________ > dev mailing list > dev@slf4j.org > http://www.slf4j.org/mailman/listinfo/dev _______________________________________________ dev mailing list dev@slf4j.org http://www.slf4j.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
