Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-logging-log4j-dev-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 7151 invoked from network); 2 Mar 2004 17:56:09 -0000 Received: from daedalus.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (208.185.179.12) by minotaur-2.apache.org with SMTP; 2 Mar 2004 17:56:09 -0000 Received: (qmail 17156 invoked by uid 500); 2 Mar 2004 17:55:59 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-logging-log4j-dev-archive@logging.apache.org Received: (qmail 17132 invoked by uid 500); 2 Mar 2004 17:55:59 -0000 Mailing-List: contact log4j-dev-help@logging.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Help: List-Post: List-Id: "Log4J Developers List" Reply-To: "Log4J Developers List" Delivered-To: mailing list log4j-dev@logging.apache.org Received: (qmail 17118 invoked from network); 2 Mar 2004 17:55:59 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO ROSMIME02.enterprise.veritas.com) (143.127.131.4) by daedalus.apache.org with SMTP; 2 Mar 2004 17:55:59 -0000 Received: from lmoxch02.veritas.com (unverified) by ROSMIME02.enterprise.veritas.com (Content Technologies SMTPRS 4.3.12) with ESMTP id for ; Tue, 2 Mar 2004 11:56:02 -0600 Received: by LMOXCH02 with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2656.59) id <17VW9T9S>; Tue, 2 Mar 2004 12:56:01 -0500 Message-ID: <097628D67E23D5119C410008C78639EE0B7C69E6@LMOXCH02> From: Jim Moore To: Log4J Developers List Subject: RE: Suggestions Date: Tue, 2 Mar 2004 12:55:59 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2656.59) Content-Type: text/plain X-Spam-Rating: daedalus.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N X-Spam-Rating: minotaur-2.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N "is this really efficient" Like most every other "efficiency" questions the answer is "It depends." And the answer to EVERY efficiency qustion is "Design a good, clean, working system FIRST, and only then worry about efficiency." To give a simple answer to your question that reflects that, if you've got a huge program with thousands of classes, then you'll have thousands of Loggers -- but if you've got a program of that complexity, you probably need all of them. If you've got a small program of a few dozen classes, then you'd only have a few dozen Loggers, which would have minimal impact. But, as always, build a good program first, then profile. -Jim Moore ________________________________ From: Garg, Nidhi [mailto:nidhi.garg@barco.com] Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2004 11:36 PM To: 'Log4J Developers List' Subject: Suggestions Ive started a project using Log4J and have a question... a) Is it a good idea to have lots of loggers? I've read that people often create a logger for each class, but is this really efficient? b)I ve created the wrapper class for Logger class.N I am trying to use configuration file for property configurator.But in property configurator we define properties like log4j.rootLogger=ERROR, A1 log4j.appender.A1=org.apache.log4j.ConsoleAppender while i ve created wrapper class of Logger in my own package..N i want user shd not be aware with the prescence of Log4j...so is thr any way so that we can replace org.apache.log4j with our own package path or name.. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: log4j-dev-unsubscribe@logging.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: log4j-dev-help@logging.apache.org