cvs commit: jakarta-log4j/src/java/org/apache/log4j/chainsaw LogPanelPreferencePanel.java LogPanel.java TableColorizingRenderer.java LogPanelPreferenceModel.java LoggingEventFieldResolver.java ChainsawConstants.java

sdeboy 2003/10/29 00:50:37 Modified:src/java/org/apache/log4j/chainsaw/filter FilterModel.java EventTypeEntryContainer.java src/java/org/apache/log4j/chainsaw/rule RuleFactory.java RuleTest.java src/java/org/a

how to set header?

Hi, I've noticed there is an abstract getHeader() method in the Layout class, which is used for example in HTMLLayout to set the html header. What I would need is to set the header for a logfile in the log4j configuration file. I'm writing performance data in a CSV format and I'd like to write th

DO NOT REPLY [Bug 24217] New: - default initialization of xml config file

DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL, BUT PLEASE POST YOUR BUG RELATED COMMENTS THROUGH THE WEB INTERFACE AVAILABLE AT . ANY REPLY MADE TO THIS MESSAGE WILL NOT BE COLLECTED AND INSERTED IN THE BUG DATABASE. http://nagoya.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bu

Performance of not logging in Log4J vs. JDK 1.4 Logging

Hi, I have written a basic test to exercise the effect of adding logging to an application but configuring no logging to be output. The test consists of some JUnit tests that repeatedly call both the Log4J and JDK 1.4 Logger.log(Level.INFO, "Hello") method 10million times (its just a test so plea

RE: Performance of not logging in Log4J vs. JDK 1.4 Logging

Howdy, This is why you surround your code in isInfoEnabled / isDebugEnabled / isEnabledFor clauses if you're going to have millions of logging statements. That has the potential to reduce the cost of (not) logging by two orders of magnitude. Yoav Shapira Millennium ChemInformatics >-Origin

RE: Performance of not logging in Log4J vs. JDK 1.4 Logging

Yoav, Thanks for the reply. The test was iterating 10 million times so that the performance could be measured - its not that I am actually planning to log that often. I am aware that I can apply these checks before logging however I would prefer if I didn't have to add them everywhere I am loggi

RE: Performance of not logging in Log4J vs. JDK 1.4 Logging

Howdy, org.apache.log4j.Hierarchy#setThreshold is what you're looking for, I believe. AppenderSkeleton also has setThreshold, but you want the message level evaluated earlier in the logging process. Yoav Shapira Millennium ChemInformatics >-Original Message- >From: David McVicar [mailt

Re: Performance of not logging in Log4J vs. JDK 1.4 Logging

David McVicar wrote: The tests are configured using log4j.xml (Log4J) and logging.properties (JDK 1.4). You should either (a) time JUST the log() method calls or (b) use the same kind of configuration file in both tests. XML is significantly harder to process than the .properties format. So, tr

Rationale for TRACE-level/priority.

I -need- a trace-level! We've used log4j for about 3 years now, and my company's portal server is totally dependent on it, and all our applications use it. Why isn't THE TRACE LEVEL there? It's so obviously needed.. There is a HUGE difference between "trace" statements, and "debug" statements.

RE: Rationale for TRACE-level/priority.

While I agree not having TRACE built in is a significant deficiency in what Log4j provides, Log4j DOES make it trivial to add and is addressed in the FAQ. For your convenience, here's a direct link to the relevant section in the FAQ: http://nagoya.apache.org/wiki/apachewiki.cgi?Log4JProjectPages/T

Re: Rationale for TRACE-level/priority.

Endre Stølsvik wrote: I -need- a trace-level! Why don't you list the current levels and the sort of messages you log on those levels? I didn't hear you mention INFO... -- Toby Butzon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ILC R&D Co-op / Georgia Tech CS / KKPsi Iota Sp03 678.904.2413 work / 678.362.6483 mobile Fif

RE: Rationale for TRACE-level/priority.

While I agree not having TRACE built in is a significant deficiency in what Log4j provides, Log4j DOES make it trivial to add and is addressed in the FAQ. For your convenience, here's a direct link to the relevant section in the FAQ: http://nagoya.apache.org/wiki/apachewiki.cgi?Log4JProjectPages/T

Re: Rationale for TRACE-level/priority.

On Wed, 29 Oct 2003, Toby Butzon wrote: | Endre Stølsvik wrote: | | > I -need- a trace-level! | | Why don't you list the current levels and the sort of messages you log | on those levels? I didn't hear you mention INFO... I did. E. ---

Re: Rationale for TRACE-level/priority.

On Wed, 29 Oct 2003, Jim Moore wrote: | While I agree not having TRACE built in is a significant deficiency in what | Log4j provides, Log4j DOES make it trivial to add and is addressed in the | FAQ. For your convenience, here's a direct link to the relevant section in | the FAQ: | http://nagoya.a

Re: Rationale for TRACE-level/priority.

Hi Endre, We're all charmed that you've found log4j to be generally useful for your application development endeavors. That it doesn't do everything you'd like it to is a concern, but not necessarily a call to action (unlike a bug in what log4j currently does). I read Jim's suggestion that l

Re: Rationale for TRACE-level/priority.

Endre, A number of user expressed their desire to see the TRACE level added. However, please note that log4j domains (to be introduced in log4j 1.3) should provide a much better alternative to adding a TRACE level or any other level for that matter. At 06:07 PM 10/29/2003 +0100, Endre Stølsvik wro

Re: Performance of not logging in Log4J vs. JDK 1.4 Logging

Toby, Yoav, Thanks for the responses. Yoav: Thanks for explaining the Hierarchy.setThreshold() method - if I was to change the config to effectively set this would I get a performance gain? I would prefer not to have to call this method in Java and would like to do this via configuration. To

Re: Performance of not logging in Log4J vs. JDK 1.4 Logging

At 10:42 AM 10/29/2003 -0800, David McVicar wrote: Toby, Yoav, Thanks for the responses. Yoav: Thanks for explaining the Hierarchy.setThreshold() method - if I was to change the config to effectively set this would I get a performance gain? I would prefer not to have to call this method in Java