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@qos.ch [mailto:logback-user-bounces@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@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] 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> 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
http://mailman.qos.ch/mailman/listinfo/logback-user
_______________________________________________
Logback-user mailing list
Logback-user@qos.ch
http://mailman.qos.ch/mailman/listinfo/logback-user