On Mon, 10 Nov 2003, Ceki Gülcü wrote: | At 03:22 PM 11/10/2003 +0100, Endre Stølsvik wrote: | >On Mon, 10 Nov 2003, Ceki Gülcü wrote: | > | >| | >| I think the text could benefit from some structure. | > | >I used the following typographical features to group and structure the | >text: | > | > * Headings | > * Bold (for sub-headings) | > * Bullet points | > * Fixed width fonts | > * Horizontal bars/rules | | I heavily edited the text. If you feel that I have done it injustice, | please accept my apologies.
You took away lots of stuff. I would like you to re-add points about: * performance overhead (Unless the source is messed with. Wrapping is slower (to preserve the proper class-name stash), and custom levels require a single-arg method invocation (along with what happens inside that method), instead of a no-args method invocation.) * "writing overhead" (for the "level-extension" type) - it is not as elegant as with all the other levels - even if this would be the most frequently used level. You could wrap it (like commons logging), that is not very good, definately not performance wise. * need to modify existing code (or at least make wrappers or other stuff) * Info is another thing (as explained in the other mail). | >Btw; the excellent argument going something like "so many people already | >have had to make the trace level themselves, that by incorporating it into | >log4j natively, we might break their hacks to depserately get the said | >feature" was really something! | | That's not from me, probably from Yoav. Although compatibility is a very | important consideration, compatibility is not a good reason against the | TRACE level (assuming that JBoss et al. can cope with the change.) Well, that argument is still standing on the page, though. Endre. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
