RE: Questions on cql binary protocol

2012-11-23 Thread Pierre Chalamet
Thanks Sylvain for explaining motivation behind this. Quite understandable. All in all, that's not a big deal anyway and can be easily overcome. - Pierre -Original Message- From: Sylvain Lebresne [mailto:sylv...@datastax.com] Sent: Monday, November 19, 2012 6:25 PM To: dev@cassandra.apac

Re: slf4j

2012-11-23 Thread Eric Charles
More guidelines from the src: http://www.slf4j.org/faq.html#logging_performance I was thrilled reading "...the second form will outperform the first form by a factor of at least 30..." On 23/11/2012 15:18, Jonathan Ellis wrote: I prefer the concise approach when no evaluation needs to be per

Re: slf4j

2012-11-23 Thread Jonathan Ellis
Agreed. On Fri, Nov 23, 2012 at 11:17 AM, Dave Brosius wrote: > There are actually 2 arguments the OP is making.. the second, using > > {} : {} > > > over > > > descriptor + ": " + (System.currentTimeMillis() - start) > > is reasonable. > > > > On 11/23/2012 10:18 AM, Jonathan Ellis wrote: >> >>

Re: slf4j

2012-11-23 Thread Dave Brosius
There are actually 2 arguments the OP is making.. the second, using {} : {} over descriptor + ": " + (System.currentTimeMillis() - start) is reasonable. On 11/23/2012 10:18 AM, Jonathan Ellis wrote: I prefer the concise approach when no evaluation needs to be performed on the method argume

Re: slf4j

2012-11-23 Thread Jonathan Ellis
I prefer the concise approach when no evaluation needs to be performed on the method arguments, but when it does I prefer the explicit isDebugEnabled check, or else reviewers need to think each time they see one, "is this a hot code path where we can afford to be sloppy, or not?" On Fri, Nov 23, 2