Yes, I looked at the profiler. That is a little more complicated than what I have.
I'll create a new entry for it in bugzilla. Also, I realized after I submitted the code for this enhancement that I used StringBuilder instead of String concatenation, forgetting that SLF4J is supposed to run on 1.4. I'll make changes and resubmit that also. Ralph Ceki Gulcu wrote: > 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 > _______________________________________________ dev mailing list dev@slf4j.org http://www.slf4j.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
