http://bugzilla.slf4j.org/show_bug.cgi?id=116
--- Comment #22 from Ralph Goers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 2008-12-03 21:53:03 --- (In reply to comment #21) > > I think that any formatter smart enough to handle both the existing syntax and > and new syntax is going to be slow, or comparatively slower than the existing > formatter, but I'd love to be proven wrong. > I don't think it matters. The new formatter is certainly going to be slower than the existing one. But the idea is to only use it where it is needed. The proposed way of doing that is via having a unique logger factory. That is really where I have an issue. The main logger factory should be able to return an XLogger or some other type of logger. This could be handled via configuration or annotations or a "marker" on the getLogger call. Creating new Logger factories for each extension isn't the right answer. I would also love to see concrete tests comparing logging 10,000 records to a file using the current formatter vs the enhanced formatter. If the I/O overhead makes the difference minor than it might not even be a problem to have it be the default formatter. -- Configure bugmail: http://bugzilla.slf4j.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the assignee for the bug. _______________________________________________ dev mailing list dev@slf4j.org http://www.slf4j.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
