On 25.04.2010, at 09:44, Robert Elliot wrote:
I've just taken a look at your code and I think it's quite neat. I've implemented it the other way around (i.e. a log-methods that receive a dumb Level enum) but I kind of like your idea of putting the log-methods into the enum instead. This leaves the Logger interface alone, which is nice. It should be extended by the various other methods, including isEnabled(Logger)/isEnabled(Logger, Marker), though - as you said.
Thanks for letting me know, Joern.
Thanks - actually I'd prefer your way, it seems more natural, but I could do this way without needing a change.
I'd also appreciate an extended Logger interface containing those log-methods, but only while switching to Java 1.5. This doesn't mean that the enum shouldn't be built like you suggested. Having both ways of logging would probably be nice, but I'm a bit torn here.
I've just tidied it up using reflection to make it much easier to add the missing methods, though probably at a small performance cost.
It would perform better if you performed the method lookups in the c'tor, keeping references to the Method objects. I wouldn't use reflection here, though, just because every bit of performance is relevant in case of logging. Cheers, Joern.