Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-jakarta-httpclient-dev-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 60822 invoked from network); 4 Jan 2005 15:37:20 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (209.237.227.199) by minotaur-2.apache.org with SMTP; 4 Jan 2005 15:37:20 -0000 Received: (qmail 24221 invoked by uid 500); 4 Jan 2005 15:37:16 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-jakarta-httpclient-dev-archive@jakarta.apache.org Received: (qmail 24203 invoked by uid 500); 4 Jan 2005 15:37:16 -0000 Mailing-List: contact httpclient-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Help: List-Post: List-Id: "HttpClient Project" Reply-To: "HttpClient Project" Delivered-To: mailing list httpclient-dev@jakarta.apache.org Received: (qmail 24176 invoked by uid 99); 4 Jan 2005 15:37:15 -0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.1 required=10.0 tests=FORGED_RCVD_HELO X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (hermes.apache.org: local policy) Received: from fire.nose.ch (HELO mail.nose.ch) (195.134.131.71) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.28) with ESMTP; Tue, 04 Jan 2005 07:37:12 -0800 Received: (qmail 20157 invoked by uid 1010); 4 Jan 2005 16:37:07 +0100 Received: from 192.168.1.7 by chekov (envelope-from , uid 89) with qmail-scanner-1.23st (clamdscan: 0.70. spamassassin: 2.64. perlscan: 1.23st. Clear:RC:1(192.168.1.7):. Processed in 0.045741 secs); 04 Jan 2005 15:37:07 -0000 X-qmail-scanner-Mail-From: ortwin.glueck@nose.ch via chekov X-qmail-scanner: 1.23st (Clear:RC:1(192.168.1.7):. Processed in 0.045741 secs Process 20149) Received: from unknown (HELO ?192.168.1.7?) (192.168.1.7) by chekov.nose.ch with AES256-SHA encrypted SMTP; 4 Jan 2005 16:37:07 +0100 Message-ID: <41DAB822.4030902@nose.ch> Date: Tue, 04 Jan 2005 16:37:06 +0100 From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Ortwin_Gl=FCck?= Organization: NOSE Applied Intelligence User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0 (Windows/20041206) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: HttpClient Project Subject: Re: Consider UGLI References: <6.0.3.0.0.20050104152610.04b42818@mail.qos.ch> In-Reply-To: <6.0.3.0.0.20050104152610.04b42818@mail.qos.ch> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Virus-Checked: Checked X-Spam-Rating: minotaur-2.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N Ceki, thanks for the pointer. It's indeed an intersting alternative to commons-logging. Do you have data that compares the performance of UGLI to that of commons-logging when used with Log4J? Especially the cost of not logging a statement would be most interesting. Thanks Ortwin Gl�ck Ceki G�lc� wrote: > > Hello, > > After log4j 1.3 is released, you might want to consider UGLI. For > details please see > > http://logging.apache.org/log4j/docs/ugli.html > > Best regards, > -- _________________________________________________________________ NOSE applied intelligence ag ortwin gl�ck [www] http://www.nose.ch software engineer hardturmstrasse 171 [pgp id] 0x81CF3416 8005 z�rich [office] +41-1-277 57 35 switzerland [fax] +41-1-277 57 12 --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: httpclient-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: httpclient-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org