Ceki, You may want to update the Log4J performance documentation to reflect the new benchmark timings using log4j 1.2 beta 3 as they have changed considerably with the addition of the date formatting patches.
http://jakarta.apache.org/log4j/docs/api/org/apache/log4j/performance/Logging.html With these patches, the timings for ISO8601 and ABSOLUTE logging are now pretty much the same as RELATIVE/%r timings. There is no longer a significant performance disadvantage in using the more human readable ISO8601 and ABSOLUTE logging date formats over RELATIVE. (They used to be twice as slow as %r). As for the ',' versus '.' thing - the ISO8601 standard explicitly allows for either character. But I can appreciate why some Log4J users would want to keep the Log4J ISO8601 date format the same as it was historically for the sake of backwards compatibility. But, all the same, it would be a shame for english speaking users of Log4J to use the four times slower PatternLayout "%d{yyyy-MM-dd HH:mm:ss.SSS}" in order to see the decimal separator "." which they are used to. -Andrew From: Ceki Gülcü Subject: Re: [PATCH] improved logging performance for some Log4J date formats Date: Sun, 17 Feb 2002 13:33:10 -0800 Andrew, Your patches have been incorporated. As mentioned previously synchronization is not necessary so I removed it. In addition, the separator for milliseconds remains the ',' character as specified by the ISO8601 standard. Thanks again for a useful patch. Ceki At 22:42 17.01.2002 -0500, you wrote: >This patch significantly improves the logging performance >of the AbsoluteTimeDateFormat class (a.k.a. "%d{ABSOLUTE}"), >and indirectly ISO8601DateFormat ("%d{ISO8601}") >and DateTimeDateFormat (%d{"DATE"}). _________________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
