I tried to take Log4j2 into use and use async logging. However it didn't seem to work. I found somebody wondering the same and that route was then System.Logging -> JUL -> Log4j2. I don't know is that just similarly slow then with JUL being in the way. Maybe SLF4J -> Log4j2 would be the correct route... Anyway, as I don't see that the logging is our biggest bottleneck.. there is no rush.
So what this brings to table is just correcting and unifying the logger object variable. And now we are using a facade instead of JUL straight. The facade will still use JUL by default.
I tried to take Log4j2 into use and use async logging. However it didn't seem to work. I found somebody wondering the same and that route was then System.Logging -> JUL -> Log4j2. I don't know is that just similarly slow then with JUL being in the way. Maybe SLF4J -> Log4j2 would be the correct route... Anyway, as I don't see that the logging is our biggest bottleneck.. there is no rush.
So what this brings to table is just correcting and unifying the logger object variable. And now we are using a facade instead of JUL straight. The facade will still use JUL by default.