Mike - I use class level granularity (as recommended by several members of this list) and have not seen performance or resource issues arise using 100s (if not 1000+) of loggers. Personally I have not had much need for class-level control of my loggers, but we still are in the habit of removing the majority of our debug statements before check-in - once we get a comfort level with keeping them in I am sure we will be very glad to have class-level control of logging!
-----Original Message----- From: Lutz Michael [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, January 17, 2003 8:10 AM To: 'Log4J Users List' Subject: Scalability: Seeking advice on logger names For systems consisting of thousands and possibly even tens of thousands of classes, are there scalability advantages to naming loggers by their package name only, as opposed to scoping completely down to the class name? (Specifically referring to the "Logger.getLogger("a.b.class");" call.) I'm thinking there may be reasons (for scalability) not to include the actual class name in the logger names, and just stop at the lowest level package name. Your thoughts are appreciated. Mike ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- --- This message and any included attachments are from Siemens Medical Solutions Health Services Corporation and are intended only for the addressee(s). The information contained herein may include trade secrets or privileged or otherwise confidential information. Unauthorized review, forwarding, printing, copying, distributing, or using such information is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you received this message in error, or have reason to believe you are not authorized to receive it, please promptly delete this message and notify the sender by e-mail with a copy to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Thank you -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
