On Mar 9, 2007, at 9:03 AM, Zakaria, Faheem wrote:
I would like to clarify the first paragraph further.
Legacy Code: (cannot be modified)
...
OurLogger.log(new LogObject("com.myclass", level.DEBUG, "Log Message
1"));
OurLogger Class: (can be modified)
public static void log(LogObject logObject) {
// refactor to use concurrent hashmap to store
and lookup Log4j Loggers
// log the request through Log4j Logger
}
Hope this helps.
Faheem
From that code snippet, it does not appear that you were critically
interested in performance when you wrote the original code as each
OurLogger.log() statement will result in the construction and
destruction of a LogObject even if the threshold for that class or
package is higher. That makes me thing that your logging statements
must be infrequently executed and trying to optimize OurLogger.log()
may not result in an observable benefit. Calling LogManager.getLogger
() repeatedly should not add all that much more to the overhead that
you are currently incurring.
To implement OurLogger.log you have to by some mechanism lookup the
Logger and Level corresponding to the LogObject passed to you. You
have not mentioned anything about how you attempt to map the level
parameter to a log4j Level.
I would run benchmarks or collect profiler data before trying to
write anything more than a straightforward implementation of
LogObject.info using LogManager.getLogger. LogManager.getLogger()
uses a JDK 1.0 Hashtable to store its map of loggers. Obviously
there are more efficient ways to do that introduced in later JDK's.
Duplicating the Hashmap backing LogManager.getLogger() with your own
map at code may not provide any noticeable performance improvement
and would result in more code for bugs to lurk in and for you to
maintain.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
