all Log4J code.
-Original Message-
From: STONE,ROBERT (HP-SanDiego,ex1) [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, August 23, 2003 12:09 AM
To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'
Subject: RE: Logging format
I guess, if you have 10 gazillions of these statements in your code... The
very first li
PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, August 22, 2003 2:50 PM
To: STONE,ROBERT (HP-SanDiego,ex1)
Subject: Re: Logging format
Witaj ex1),
W Twoim liście datowanym 22 sierpnia 2003 (19:03:18) można przeczytać:
SRHSe> Hi guys,
SRHSe> Just curious why you're using in your code constructs like
Witaj ex1),
W Twoim liście datowanym 22 sierpnia 2003 (19:03:18) można przeczytać:
SRHSe> Hi guys,
SRHSe> Just curious why you're using in your code constructs like
SRHSe> if ( log.debuggingIsEnabled() ) {
SRHSe> log.debug( "foo" );
SRHSe> }
SRHSe> Isn't this redundant? After all log.
STONE,ROBERT (HP-SanDiego,ex1) wrote:
Just curious why you're using in your code constructs like
if ( log.debuggingIsEnabled() ) {
log.debug( "foo" );
}
Isn't this redundant? After all log.debug() will only output messages when
debugging level is set to DEBUG. Why not just use log.debug( "f
Hi guys,
Just curious why you're using in your code constructs like
if ( log.debuggingIsEnabled() ) {
log.debug( "foo" );
}
Isn't this redundant? After all log.debug() will only output messages when
debugging level is set to DEBUG. Why not just use log.debug( "foo" )? Saves
you two line
