On Jun 19, 2009, at 1:53 AM, Emmanuel Bourg wrote:
ralph.goers @dslextreme.com a écrit :
The overhead is acceptable for the limited logging requirements of
Commons
Configuration.
1. You have determined this how?
2. Commons Configuration needs more logging added. I have had
difficulty
identifying problems because not enough logging is being done. I
will be
adding this.
1. Commons Configuration logs errors mainly when a configuration is
loaded or saved. These errors are rare and when they happen, the few
nanoseconds you might lose with the logging statements are
insignificant compared to the time spent in the IO operations.
2. I just hope you won't add traces to every method calls.
No, I will not go that far.
But not for mine. I do plan on reverting configuration2 back to
commons
logging when I get some time. I'd prefer SLF4J but this list has
indicated
that commons logging is the preferred logging framework to use for
commons
projects.
Please don't forget to demonstrate that JUL is unsuitable first.
1. This discussion has already proven that to me. But then again, I
knew that before the discussion started.
2. In all the various logging discussions that have taken place on
this list in the last few months, many initiated by me, the concensus
seems to be that commons logging is the logging framework that should
be used by commons projects. Although not my preference I will abide
by that. Then I will spend some time on commons logging when I have
time to see what, if any, improvements can be made.
Ralph
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
