Hi Bernd, Am Freitag, den 17.11.2006, 08:42 +0100 schrieb Bernd Fondermann:
> > I also ran with jdk5 that code in a loop of 1 million iterations using > > foo = "foo" and bar = "bar" (this is FAR from any realistic scenario). > > <sigh> Microbenchmarking, again! ;-) > Could it be you are testing loop optimization here? ;-) > > What also is totally obscured by the whole discussion, is to set in > relation the max performance difference of the different logging > implementations discussed here - the "delta" - to the cost of the > rest of the method. Only if delta is a significant cost (a "hot spot") > it is worth talking about optimizing it before optimizing everything > else. +1 This is exactly my thought. As long as nobody showed me (even by a extrapolation) that its costs are significant, I consider even those is<Log>Enabled on a per command issue as programmers voodoo and rumors. IMO the users will benefit more from readable, maintainable code than from 0.5 % memory savings and 0.5 % more concurrent connections. (replace the numbers with your profiling results) BTW: I have often seen NPE *bugs* in debug messages, that appeared magically when the costumer has turned on *de*bugging. :-) This could avoided by putting a try/catch block around... Joachim --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
