Instead of saying
if(logger.isDebugEnabled() {
logger.debug("XXX...
}
I want a method like
logger.checkDebug("XXX..
that does that.
It looks cleaner.
.V
James Stauffer wrote:
Question: Right now, if debug enabled is serveral lines of code, just
like in the old days.
Can we place just change the signature of debug and others to indicate
if the loging will only happen if enabled or all the time?
This way I avoid the not nice sytnax of ... if debug enabled.
It already only logs if enabled.
See the Performance section of
http://logging.apache.org/log4j/docs/manual.html for more info. I
have included a portion to explain.
The method invocation involves the "hidden" cost of parameter construction.
For example, for some logger cat, writing,
logger.debug("Entry number: " + i + " is " + String.valueOf(entry[i]));
incurs the cost of constructing the message parameter, i.e. converting
both integer i and entry[i] to a String, and concatenating
intermediate strings, regardless of whether the message will be logged
or not. This cost of parameter construction can be quite high and it
depends on the size of the parameters involved.
To avoid the parameter construction cost write:
if(logger.isDebugEnabled() {
logger.debug("Entry number: " + i + " is " + String.valueOf(entry[i]));
}
This will not incur the cost of parameter construction if debugging is
disabled. On the other hand, if the logger is debug-enabled, it will
incur twice the cost of evaluating whether the logger is enabled or
not: once in debugEnabled and once in debug. This is an insignificant
overhead because evaluating a logger takes about 1% of the time it
takes to actually log.
--
RiA-SoA w/JDNC <http://www.SandraSF.com> forums
- help develop a community
My blog <http://www.sandrasf.com/adminBlog>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
