On Dec 10, 2008, at 11:36 AM, Ceki Gulcu wrote:
Curt Arnold wrote:
The supposed performance benefit of the SLF4J formatter over the
java.text.MessageFormat only occurs when you compare the
performance against naive use of java.text.MessageFormat. LogMF
handles the simplest pattern spe
On Dec 9th 2008 16:57 GMT Curt Arnold wrote:
> The supposed performance benefit of the SLF4J formatter over the
> java.text.MessageFormat only occurs when you compare the performance
> against naive use of java.text.MessageFormat. LogMF handles the
> simplest pattern specifications (those just
On Dec 11, 2008, at 9:04 AM, Ceki Gulcu wrote:
On Dec 9th 2008 16:57 GMT Curt Arnold wrote:
> The supposed performance benefit of the SLF4J formatter over the
> java.text.MessageFormat only occurs when you compare the performance
> against naive use of java.text.MessageFormat. LogMF handles
