Howdy, Although we've resolved the original question, I have a related one: has anyone tried using a FastHashMap or another of the commons-collections utilities to improve the performance of the logger lookup?
Yoav Shapira Millennium ChemInformatics >-----Original Message----- >From: Ceki Gülcü [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >Sent: Wednesday, April 02, 2003 9:51 AM >To: Log4J Users List >Subject: Re: AW: Performance and Logger.getLogger() > >At 04:41 PM 4/2/2003 +0200, you wrote: >>Hey! >> >>Erik: >> >>The FAQ: >>http://jakarta.apache.org/log4j/docs/FAQ.html >> >> >>You are on the right track. >> >>The question is: >> >>{ >> Logger logger = Logger.getLogger("foo.bar"); >> >> logger.warn(""); >> logger.error(""); >> >>}(Good) > >yes. good. > >>vs. >>{ >> Logger.getLogger("foo.bar").warn(""); >> Logger.getLogger("foo.bar").warn(""); >> Logger.getLogger("foo.bar").warn(""); >>}(Bad) > >yes, bad. > >Logger.getLogger("something") will essentially perform a look up on a >hashtable. I don't think you could improve on this by keeping your own >hashtable. There are ways where you could potentially improve on the lookup >performance but this would require a really disproportionate amount of >effort on your part. > > >-- >Ceki > > >--------------------------------------------------------------------- >To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] This e-mail, including any attachments, is a confidential business communication, and may contain information that is confidential, proprietary and/or privileged. This e-mail is intended only for the individual(s) to whom it is addressed, and may not be saved, copied, printed, disclosed or used by anyone else. If you are not the(an) intended recipient, please immediately delete this e-mail from your computer system and notify the sender. Thank you. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
