Nice discussion. Goes further than I had thought. This pushes efficiency even further. I like it. From: logback-user-bounces@qos.ch [mailto:logback-user-bounces@qos.ch] On Behalf Of Chris Pratt Sent: Friday, 8 February 2013 10:54 AM 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@geometryit.com<mailto:brett.walker@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@qos.ch<mailto:logback-user-bounces@qos.ch> [mailto:logback-user-bounces@qos.ch<mailto:logback-user-bounces@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@geometryit.com<mailto:brett.walker@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@qos.ch<mailto:Logback-user@qos.ch> http://mailman.qos.ch/mailman/listinfo/logback-user