On Tuesday 05 July 2005 21:06, Ceki Gülcü wrote: > >Somehow it feels very similar to what we did in > >LogKit as well as Avalon Logging API, but still not. > > What is similar in LogKit or Avalon Logging API?
>Or maybe you just meant that > marker functionality can be achieved by using child loggers? Yes. As I mentioned, not same, just felt similar. > However, markers allow us to mark *any* logger. So, if a concern cuts > across many loggers, you can mark their statements with one > marker. Compare that with the child logger approach where you would > need as many "header" children as loggers. Hmmm... Perhaps you are right. Which actually makes matters "worse" ;o) If logger.debug( m ) is the equivalent of logger.log( Level.DEBUG, m ); and you are now introducing logger.log( Level.DEBUG, Marker.MINE, m ); Doesn't the question quickly becomes; "How many axis are enough?" It used to be 1, you are now suggesting 2. And personally, I feel this quickly will end up in AOP space, where you do N of your own choice :o) I still have no opinion. Even the "gut" is undecided, which is very rare. Cheers Niclas _______________________________________________ dev mailing list [email protected] http://slf4j.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
