I do think the if statements guarding code tends to help obfuscate the code.
There has been an issue suggesting a less messy way from the log4j users perspective - http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=16229 Doesn't work for all cases but I think it will make a lot of code using log4j a lot cleaner. This has been marked as fixed. So is it in a forthcoming release? Bob. > > From: Vic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Date: 2005/01/20 Thu AM 05:54:15 GMT > To: log4j-user@logging.apache.org > Subject: Re: Wish for CVS version: if debug enabled() > > 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] > > ----------------------------------------- Email provided by http://www.ntlhome.com/ --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
