Two quick comments.
I'm not fond of the term "ignored". "error", "warn" and "info" are
all statements about the developer's assessment of the severity of
logging request, "ignored" is a statement of what the developer
things a diagnostician would do with the information. I would think
"expected" would be a better term since it is a statement that the
developer thought the exception would likely occur.
I haven't closely followed the "marker" proposal, but possibly it
would be useful to consider the existing logging hierarchy to be
analogous a class hierarchy and the marker proposal to be an
indication of a desire for something like the interface construct
where classes in radically different parts of the hierarchy could be
grouped by some other aspect. If that was followed, then you could
see something like a logger declaration including both a name
(establishing its place in the hierarchy) and a set of "interface"
names that the logger should participate in.
_______________________________________________
dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://slf4j.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
