Endre, Thanks for your message.
Well, the trace level has been requested by some users politely and sometimes less politely. I was convinced by Costin's use-case [1] quoted below: At the moment we are left with one major issue and that is having a jcl11-over-sfl4j bridge. AFAIK, the only difference from jcl104 is that trace() calls are using trace level rather then debug. I have several code bases where trace is used extensively for low level debugging and the jcl-104 behavior causes a lot of unnecessary output and thus prevents to some extent using slf4j. Since, since SLF4J aims to be an abstraction layer to various logging APIs, it is no longer a question of whether TRACE is a useful level or not, but a question of whether the lack of TRACE level *in SLF4J* causes trouble in using *other* logging systems. Since the answer to the latter seems to be yes, the addition of the TRACE level was a logical consequence. I hope this clarifies the matter, [1] http://marc.info/?t=117535727300002&r=1&w=2 Endre Stølsvik wrote: > Ceki Gulcu wrote Mon, 16 Apr 2007 12:38:17 -0700: > > > Hello All, > > > > Is there any opposition to adding the TRACE level in the next version > > of SLF4J, namely 1.4.0? > > Oh NO, please don't! That would be absolute hell! One more > verbosity-level? What should one DO with all these levels?! The users' > brains will explode! Immense feature creep will commence! One will soon > be able to read email with slf4j! > > This is simply destined for disaster. > > Oh, DANG, you've already released it in the 1.4.0 version of 16th of May?! > > How could you POSSIBLY do this, Ceki?? > > You, the absolute bastion of Say-NO!-to-TRACE, who leaves log4j due to > TRACE entering the codebase on cross of one's vote, the one ROCK SOLID > TRUTH one could bet your life, not only your life, but your whole > family's lives on: There will *NEVER*, and I mean positively NEVER-EVER, > be a TRACE level in any projects Ceki holds any fingers on. > > And then this bomb: TRACE enters Ceki's new project. In his new LOGGING > project. In his new logging project's *CORE API*. And it is ACTUALLY > Ceki that proposes it... > > > Personal opinion? I believe Ceki is invaded by aliens that have taken > over his body. Inside his head, his brain is dimly aware of something > terrible happening, but he can't do anything about it. > > > Oh well, better kick log4j outta my projects: slf4j here I come! :) > > Kind regards, > Endre. > > PS: I notice that slf4j also don't have FATAL. How good. Finally there's > a BIT better balance between "development" and "production" levels. I > never got the point of FATAL - it is pretty much as interesting as > having a dedicated level for APPLICATION_STARTUP - both will at most > have one log-line per execution, for something that is plainly obvious > without them.. -- Ceki Gülcü Logback: The reliable, generic, fast and flexible logging framework for Java. http://logback.qos.ch _______________________________________________ dev mailing list [email protected] http://www.slf4j.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
