Ooops. I meant this: logger.debug(Class<? extends Message> m, Throwable t, Object... messageParams);
The point was to pass in the Class of the Message so it doesn't get instantiated unless logging is going to occur. Paul On Thu, Oct 4, 2012 at 9:12 PM, Gary Gregory <garydgreg...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Thu, Oct 4, 2012 at 10:06 PM, Paul Benedict <pbened...@apache.org>wrote: > >> On Thu, Oct 4, 2012 at 7:24 PM, Gary Gregory <garydgreg...@gmail.com>wrote: >> >>> On Thu, Oct 4, 2012 at 5:55 PM, Paul Benedict <pbened...@apache.org>wrote: >>> >>>> Ralph, >>>> >>>> This is actually a discussion you and I had a while back when I was >>>> trying to figure out how to use String.format(). I like the model now of >>>> specifying the message class... however... >>>> >>>> It does seem a bit unseemly to instantiate an xxxMessage object that >>>> may never get used. I'd rather just pass in the Class<?> and let the logger >>>> instantiate it only if it is going to log something. The only downside is >>>> then configuring the actual class. >>>> >>>> Thoughts? >>>> >>> >>> So instead of: >>> >>> this.logger.debug(new StringFormattedMessage(format, values), t); >>> >>> I would do: >>> >>> this.logger.debug(StringFormattedMessage.class, t, format, values); >>> >>> >> I was thinking of adding this signature: >> logger.debug(Message m, Throwable t, Object... messageParams); >> >> Thoughts? >> > > Pardon me for being dense, but how does that help in the case of my > examples? > > Thank you in advance for clarifying, > Gary > >> >> Paul >> > > > > -- > E-Mail: garydgreg...@gmail.com | ggreg...@apache.org > JUnit in Action, 2nd Ed: <http://goog_1249600977>http://bit.ly/ECvg0 > Spring Batch in Action: <http://s.apache.org/HOq>http://bit.ly/bqpbCK > Blog: http://garygregory.wordpress.com > Home: http://garygregory.com/ > Tweet! http://twitter.com/GaryGregory >
