OK, I stand corrected. I was the victim of my own misunderstanding. I will do what you suggest. Thanks.
-----Original Message----- From: Craig R. McClanahan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thu 10/2/2003 12:21 AM To: Jakarta Commons Users List Cc: Subject: Re: DEBUG vs. TRACE under Log4JLogger Steve Cohen wrote: >Well, I understand what you're saying, but now I've had the nasty >surprise of upgrading to 1.0.3 under the assumption that TRACE would be >a no-op under log4j only to find that it's been redefined out from under >me. You haven't commented on my question as to whether that's the way >it used to work but I have a pretty strong remembrance that that's what >it did. I remember a pretty nasty RTFM from the Log4j people when I >asked them why trace() did nothing. > >Unfortunately I can't find the old docs. > > A browse through the CVS history of Log4JLogger (and its predecessor, Log4JCategoryLog) will show that the Log4J wrapper has *always* mapped TRACE level output to Log4J's DEBUG level output, from the very beginning. http://cvs.apache.org/viewcvs/jakarta-commons/logging/src/java/org/apache/commons/logging/impl/ >I still don't see what the problem would be in giving the user the >NON-DEFAULT option of treating trace as a no-op. However, I guess I can >do what you suggest without too much difficulty. > We do give you this option -- implement a subclass of Log4JLogger (or create your own -- it's pretty simple) and use that instead. Craig --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
