LOL Paulo
> -----Original Message----- > From: Peter Donald [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Monday, January 14, 2002 10:59 AM > To: Jakarta Commons Developers List > Subject: Re: [logging] consensus about Log interface? > > > Wow - almost identical to the Avalon Logger interface. > > On Mon, 14 Jan 2002 10:09, robert burrell donkin wrote: > > i think it's important to get a consensus since we might have to stick > > with this interface for some time. this is an attempt to > summarize what i > > think came out of the various threads. it should make it easier > for anyone > > else who thinks otherwise to make that clear. > > > > 1. no one else (but me) has any great enthusiasm for making log levels > > internal to commons-logging. so we'll lose that idea. > > > > 2. commons-logging should not perform any configuration of the > underlying > > logging system. therefore setLevel() should be removed. > > > > 3, getLevel cannot be used reliable for anything more than the basic > > levels (ie. debug, info, warn, error, fatal). the behaviour of > > commons-logging (from a component's point of view) should not depend on > > any feature of the logging system which the user chooses. therefore > > getLevel should be removed and isWarnEnabled, isErrorEnabled and > > isFatalEnabled methods added instead. any implementation which cannot > > reliable determine the log level should return true for each of these > > methods. > > > > - robert > > -- > Cheers, > > Pete > > "You know what a dumbshit the 'average man' on the street is? Well, by > definition, half of them are even dumber than that!" > J.R. "Bob" Dobbs > > -- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: > <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > For additional commands, e-mail: > <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
