directory-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Alex Karasulu <aok...@bellsouth.net>
Subject Re: Logging and Logger Name Conventions
Date Sat, 12 Nov 2005 17:46:45 GMT
Simon.Temple@saaconsultants.com wrote:

>
>
>I have a couple of points on the use of Loggers I'd like opinions on:
>
>1.  After embedding the server within JBoss it took a long time to stop the
>BERDigester DEBUG messages filling up our log files.  By convention most
>projects that use logging create loggers using their class names:
>LoggerFactory.getLogger( InterceptorChainTest.class );  So controlling
>logging system wide is quite intuitive.
>
>  
>
You're right this should be as you say.  I have committed a change to 
make it so:

revision 332800

>The BERDIgester does not follow this convention.  It creates a logger with
>a fixes name "BERDigester".
>
>      org.apache.asn1.ber.digester.BERDigesterLoggingMonitor
>
>Can/should this be changed?
>
>  
>
Done above.

>2.  I spotted a few calls to log.xxx() which are not wrapped in
>log.isxxxEnabled() calls.  This can lead to inefficiencies especially when
>the log.xxx() call involves String concatenation.  See
>org.apache.ldap.server.jndi.ServerContextFactory log.info() calls for
>examples.  Can these be changed?
>
>  
>
Sure Simon you are 100% right. I don't think anyone has made it a good 
practice to wrap these things.  I will make sure I do this all the 
time.  I will accept and apply any patches that wrap log called with a 
conditional to see if the log level is enabled.  I will apply it 
immediate if you or anyone else can provide them.

Thanks,
Alex


Mime
View raw message