Hi Dongjin, Thanks for the KIP.
It is not so clear to me why we decided not to support OFF in the first place. I understand that entirely disabling a logger is rare. I find the KIP a bit week at the moment for two reasons: 1) The KIP says that the levels that we use are not fully consistent with the log4j's level. OFF and ALL miss. However, the KIP proposes to only introduce OFF. 2) Introducing ALL is rejected because TRACE could be used. I think that the same argument for OFF as FATAL could be used to reduce the verbosity to the minimum and as we rarely use FATAL in the code base that is more or less equivalent to OFF. This is what I usually do, personally. Honestly, I don't feel strong either way so let's see what others have to say. Cheers, David On Fri, Jan 28, 2022 at 11:04 AM Dongjin Lee <dong...@apache.org> wrote: > > Hi Kafka dev, > > I would like to start the discussion of KIP-817: Fix inconsistency in > dynamic application log levels. > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-817%3A+Fix+inconsistency+in+dynamic+application+log+levels > > This is rather a minor issue, but I found it while working with KIP-653: > Upgrade log4j to log4j2 (Accepted). > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-653%3A+Upgrade+log4j+to+log4j2 > > All kinds of feedbacks are greatly appreciated! > > Best, > Dongjin > > -- > *Dongjin Lee* > > *A hitchhiker in the mathematical world.* > > > > *github: <http://goog_969573159/>github.com/dongjinleekr > <https://github.com/dongjinleekr>keybase: https://keybase.io/dongjinleekr > <https://keybase.io/dongjinleekr>linkedin: kr.linkedin.com/in/dongjinleekr > <https://kr.linkedin.com/in/dongjinleekr>speakerdeck: speakerdeck.com/dongjin > <https://speakerdeck.com/dongjin>*
