logging-log4j-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Bender Heri <hben...@ergonomics.ch>
Subject RE: Extending Logger
Date Tue, 02 Nov 2010 13:33:10 GMT
I am confused. Do you respond to my suggestion? I suggested to set up everything Logger and
Appender) programmatically, as it is defined in your own config file.
Which performance do you mean? The setup performance or the runtime, when the loggers are
used? The latter is independantly of how you set up your logger univers, the former should
not concern, or does it?
Heri

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mohan.Radhakrishnan [mailto:mohanr@fss.co.in]
> Sent: Tuesday, November 02, 2010 2:26 PM
> To: log4j-user@logging.apache.org
> Subject: RE: Extending Logger
> 
> 
> So this is what I understand.
> 
> If I have too many appender sections in the XML then one appender for a
> logger is created by log4j.
> 
> Instead of that I can have one appender and a custom logger for each log
> file.
> 
> Both could be equivalent as far as performance is concerned. Am I right ?
> 
> --
> View this message in context: http://old.nabble.com/Extending-Logger-tp30018462p30113734.html
> Sent from the Log4j - Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
> 
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: log4j-user-unsubscribe@logging.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: log4j-user-help@logging.apache.org


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: log4j-user-unsubscribe@logging.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: log4j-user-help@logging.apache.org


Mime
View raw message