[infinispan-dev] trace vs log.isTraceEnabled

[Bela Ban]

+1000

On 12/7/11 6:04 PM, Emmanuel Bernard wrote:
>
> On 7 déc. 2011, at 17:37, Sanne Grinovero wrote:
>
>> On 7 December 2011 16:15, Manik Surtani<manik at jboss.org>  wrote:
>>> Sanne,
>>>
>>> +1 to consistency.  I suggest we
>>> repurpose https://issues.jboss.org/browse/ISPN-1429 to a consistent logging
>>> scheme.  My preference is for a static final boolean trace =
>>> log.isTraceEnabled().
>>>
>>> But I do see Erik's concerns about wanting to switch on tracing on the fly.
>>>
>>> - Manik
>>
>> Not sure if you can wait, but as soon as I have some free time (i.e.
>> christmas?) I'll make a POC of a solution taking the best of two
>> worlds. Need a POC before talking further about it :D
>
> Just to put some perspectives on things.
> Yes the code will waste some cycles checking for trace level but I'd rather have you guys invent a better distro or local / tx / lock algorithm that will speed Infinispan by 10x rather than chasing 1/10 of a %. Just saying :)

-- 
Bela Ban
Lead JGroups (http://www.jgroups.org)
JBoss / Red Hat