[slf4j-dev] [Bug 13] JDK14LoggerAdapter does not preserve source class name

[bugzilla-daemon at gil.qos.ch]

http://bugzilla.slf4j.org/show_bug.cgi?id=13





------- Additional Comments From boris.unckel.mlg at gmx.net  2006-02-06 15:09 -------
(In reply to comment #11)
> Boris writes:
> 
> > For x4juli there is no problem, neither whith or without the
> > patch. x4juli generates LocationInformation just and only when the
> > user configures the Formatter to do so. (Ceki: You will remember that
> > feature, think of PatternLayout :-)
> 
> How does the patch *not* impact the generation of caller information
> in the x4juli case? As I understand it, there would be an
> impact. Peter's patch would cause caller information to be generation
> for every log call regardless of what PatternFormatter's lazy caller
> inferring.
> 
> My proposal is to apply Peter's patch to JDK14LoggerAdapter for use
> with SLF4J's binding for vanilla JDK logging but *not* for
> x4juli. X4juli should have its own copy of JDK14LoggerAdapter.
> 
> Does the above make sense? Sound reasonable?

For x4juli look at
http://svn.berlios.de/viewcvs/x4juli/trunk/src/java/org/x4juli/X4JuliLogger.java?view=markup

x4juli does not use the JDK14LoggerAdapter, it does not use any wrapper class
for SLF4J or JCL at all. It is a native implementation of their interfaces.
So: Everything changed in the o.s.Logger Interface will cause changes in x4juli,
everything changend in the *Adapater will not affect x4juli at all.
So your argumentation is OK, Peters patch can be applied.
I just give my +0 because users with their own propietary Formatter will have an
performance impact. All "plain java.util.logging with no extension" users will
have an advantage with the patch.

-- 
Configure bugmail: http://bugzilla.slf4j.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the assignee for the bug, or are watching the assignee.