[slf4j-dev] Repost

[Ceki Gulcu]

Thorbjørn Ravn Andersen wrote:
> Ceki Gulcu skrev  den 25-08-2008 22:18:
>> If your are uncomfortable with incorporating XLogger in the instrumentation 
>> code, that's fine with me. However, if you are uncomfortable with XLogger by 
>> itself, regardless of instrumentation, then I welcome any constructive criticism 
>> you might have, as would, I am sure, Ralph Goers. Do not hesitate to start a new 
>> thread if you do voice criticism.
>>
>>   
> I am thinking this over as I am trying to identify which problem it is 
> that is being solved, instead of just seeing the tool.

Calling a logger when entering a method or when exiting it is not uncommon. 
XLogger caters for that use case by extending the methods available in the 
Logger interface. Isn't  the instrumentation code under discussion also a 
variation of the aforementioned use case?

[snip]

> I believe so.  The reason why slf4j API does not have to be present is 
> because it is not needed inside the agent to add the java snippets, but 
> it must be available to the program being instrumented to be able to 
> resolve the instrumented byte code in the classloader.  This to me means 
> that either a full slfj4 + backend must be provided or the usual 
> responsibilities must be obeyed by the deployer.
> 
> The agent needs javaassist to run at all.
> 

OK, thank you for explaining the difference.

-- 
Ceki Gülcü