Howdy,
>Sorry, my intent wasn't to recommend a change in the naming convention
in
>general or start controversy.
Don't worry, I didn't interpret it as such ;) Just explaining some of
our (and by "our" I mean the projects I work on, not the log4j developer
community) design and experiences in thi
: Shapira, Yoav [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday, January 17, 2003 11:17 AM
To: Log4J Users List
Subject: RE: Scalability: Seeking advice on logger names
Howdy,
We have systems with thousands of classes, each having a private static
final Logger with its name as the full class name. We h
Mike -
I use class level granularity (as recommended by several members of this
list) and have not seen performance or resource issues arise using 100s (if
not 1000+) of loggers. Personally I have not had much need for class-level
control of my loggers, but we still are in the habit of removing th
Howdy,
We have systems with thousands of classes, each having a private static
final Logger with its name as the full class name. We haven't run into
scalability or performance problems related to this.
Losing the ability to turn the debug level for a specific class (as
opposed to a package) at r
