Thanks Ceki for your response to these questions. It helps while
making our choices. Anyway looks like we're going with SLF4J as a
result of the vote that is due to close.
Alex
On Jul 4, 2005, at 4:30 PM, Ceki Gülcü wrote:
Trustin Lee wrote:
> SLF4J doesn't have "FATAL" level AFAIK. Would this be OK?
This question is answered in the SLF4J FAQ [1] quoted below:
Why doesn't the org.slf4j.Logger interface have methods for the
FATAL
level?
From the stand point of a logging system, the distinction
between a
fatal error and an error is usually not very useful. Most
programmers
exit the application when a fatal error is encountered.
However, a
logging library cannot (and should not) decide on its own to
terminate
an application. The initiative to exit the application must be
left to
the developer.
Thus, the most the FATAL level can do is to highlight a given
error as
the cause for application to crash. However, errors are by
definition
exceptional events that merit attention. If a given situation
causes
errors to be logged, the causes should be attended to as
soon as
possible. However, if the "error" is actually a normal situation
which
cannot be prevented but merits being aware of, then it
should be
marked as WARN, not ERROR.
Assuming the ERROR level designates exceptional situations
meriting
close attention, we are inclined to believe that the FATAL
level is
superfluous.
Does this answer your question?
[1] http://slf4j.org/faq.html#2.5
--
Ceki Gülcü
The complete log4j manual: http://www.qos.ch/log4j/
