[logback-user] commons-logging -> sl4j -> logback

[Chris Pratt]

Unfortunately I don't have any solid numbers.  I can definitely tell you
that it's significantly faster in production settings when compared to
using '+' to build up logging strings, but it will definitely be slower in
debug settings when reflection is used.  My focus has been to make it as
fast as possible under all settings, but to focus more on the production
performance, since that's what affects end users the most.

In my opinion the ability to leave verbose debugging messages including
lots of well formatted data in the program for those times when bugs crop
up in the field, without degrading performance for every other user of the
system is a huge win.
  (*Chris*)


On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 12:26 AM, Thorbjørn Ravn Andersen <
thunderaxiom at hotmail.com> wrote:

> Out of curiosity, how fast is your solution compared with the standard
> syntax parser?  Problem with logging systems is that they have to share
> cpu-cycles with the main program, so they need to be fast to avoid slowing
> the main program down.****
>
> ** **
>
> *From:* logback-user-bounces at qos.ch [mailto:logback-user-bounces at qos.ch] *On
> Behalf Of *Chris Pratt
> *Sent:* 8. februar 2013 00:54
>
> *To:* logback users list
> *Subject:* Re: [logback-user] commons-logging -> sl4j -> logback****
>
> ** **
>
> I have a bit of a discussion on why a more robust formatting option is
> desirable.  Check out http://code.google.com/p/anodyzed/wiki/Log****
>
> and please feel free to ask any questions that come to mind.****
>
>   (*Chris*)****
>
> ** **
>
> On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 3:50 PM, Brett Walker <brett.walker at geometryit.com>
> wrote:****
>
> It’s may bad. {} is the only syntax allowed****
>
>  ****
>
> It would be a nice addition to have positional, but how warranted is it?**
> **
>
>  ****
>
> Brett****
>
>  ****
>
> *From:* logback-user-bounces at qos.ch [mailto:logback-user-bounces at qos.ch] *On
> Behalf Of *David Harkness
> *Sent:* Friday, 8 February 2013 10:46 AM****
>
>
> *To:* logback users list
> *Subject:* Re: [logback-user] commons-logging -> sl4j -> logback****
>
>  ****
>
> On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 3:35 PM, Brett Walker <brett.walker at geometryit.com>
> wrote:****
>
> This avoids calling the toString() method on the objects until the log
> message is actually required to be logged.****
>
>
> Sorry, Brett, I changed the subject without actually changing the subject
> since it was semi-related. :) I was asking about "{0}" versus "{}".****
>
>  ****
>
> David****
>
>  ****
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Logback-user mailing list
> Logback-user at qos.ch
> http://mailman.qos.ch/mailman/listinfo/logback-user****
>
> ** **
>
> _______________________________________________
> Logback-user mailing list
> Logback-user at qos.ch
> http://mailman.qos.ch/mailman/listinfo/logback-user
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.qos.ch/pipermail/logback-user/attachments/20130208/d0249779/attachment.html>