Mailing-List: contact dev-help@directory.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: "Apache Directory Developers List" <dev@directory.apache.org>
Received-SPF: pass (asf.osuosl.org: domain of aok123@bellsouth.net designates
 205.152.59.72 as permitted sender)
Message-ID: <43789EF1.6050202@bellsouth.net>
Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2005 09:28:01 -0500
From: Alex Karasulu <aok123@bellsouth.net>
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.7 (Macintosh/20050923)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Apache Directory Developers List <dev@directory.apache.org>
Subject: Re: Logging and Logger Name Conventions
References: 
 <OF1252DE93.3582770C-ON802570B6.005DDA39-802570B6.005EEF93@SAAConsultants.com>
 <43762A85.3090906@bellsouth.net> <6.0.3.0.0.20051114110559.04f914e8@torino>
In-Reply-To: <6.0.3.0.0.20051114110559.04f914e8@torino>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

Ceki G�lc� wrote:

> At 06:46 PM 11/12/2005, Alex Karasulu wrote:
>
>>> 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.
>
>
> If you are using SLF4J, then wrapping is not necessary. Instead of 
> writing,
>
> if(logger.isDebugEnabled()) {
>   logger.debug("User name is "+name+".");
> }
>
> you can write
>
>   logger.debug("User name is {}.", name);
>
> The second form is more convenient, has a smaller footprint (both in 
> memory and on disk) and is slightly faster.
>
> For more details, please refer to http://www.slf4j.org/faq.html#2.3
>
> I hope this helps,

Thanks again Ceki.  I forgot that this second overload actually does the 
check for us.  Good thing to point out yet again and again.  I'm sure 
people will gravitate as I did to the old way.

Alex