I agree, we don't need to over complicate it... unless in the future
people want/need more flexability. Your suggestion is more along
what I was thinking about, however, those attributes are private
and protected, so I wasn't sure if we wanted to access them directly
or create methods.
|)ave
Anders Kristensen wrote:
> Well, it still only matters if it's invoked a *lot*, e.g. on the main
> path of a Category or some appender or layout. *If* this is the case
> then I would agree we should do something about it, although I don't
> think it should be something as complete as log4j itself. Just moving
> the check done in LogLog.debug, say, itself up to guard the invocation
> would do it, e.g. change
>
> LogLog.error(...);
>
> to
>
> if (!LogLog.quietMode) LogLog.error(...);
>
> Anders
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
