I would have to agree with you. Please feel free to submit a patch. We could
use a little extra documentation surrounding logging too, if you are willing to
go that far :-)
"Mark R. Diggory" wrote:
> I think I see my logging issue. The wire logger seems to get initialized
> without the "base package name". Was this intentional?
>
> it gets instantiated as:
>
> private static final Log wireLog = LogFactory.getLog("httpclient.wire");
>
> It might be better for users of the package who are dealing with logging
> issues if this were within the category "org.apache.commons.httpclient"
> such that it could be turned on and of using the absolute package name.
>
> IE:
>
> private static final Log wireLog =
> LogFactory.getLog("HttpConnection.class");
>
> builds a Logger with the category
> "org.apache.commons.httpclient.HttpConnection"
>
> private static final Log wireLog = LogFactory.getLog("httpclient.wire");
>
> builds a Logger with the category "httpclient.wire"
>
> it might be better to instatiate it as
>
> private static final Log wireLog =
> LogFactory.getLog(""org.apache.commons.httpclient.wire");
>
> then it can be controlled within the same category as the client:
>
> In Log4J
>
> <logger name="org.apache.commons.httpclient" additivity="false">
> <level value="error"/>
> <appender-ref ref="CONSOLE"/>
> </logger>
>
> would set logging in the HttpClient to error including the wire log.
>
> Just my 2Cents,
> Mark
>
> --
> 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]>
