W dniu 23.08.2013 11:01, Robert Schadek pisze:
On 08/23/2013 10:30 AM, Piotr Szturmaj wrote:
?
Any other Logger:
auto myCoolLogger = new XXXXLogger();
myCoolLogger.logLevel = LogLevel.Critical;
For the default Logger:
log.logLevel = LogLevel.Info;
I see, but isn't separate class instance for every log level a bit too
much? Setting log level before calling log() isn't (IMHO) good either
(think of multi-threaded logging).
There isn't. Every Logger has a LogLevel, which can be changed. Every
log message also has a LogLevel hence .info() .error() ...
My opinion is that LogLevel should not be encapsulated within Logger
class.
Instead function overloading should be used (again IMO):
void log(string message);
void log(LogLevel level, string message);
So having separate classes for different loggers (sinks) is very nice,
but LogLevel should be specifiable for each message, no matter which
Logger class is used.
It is.
so if I have a LogLevel variable I want to use:
LogLevel myLogLevel;
I need to write this:
# alternative 1 (possibly wrapped in a function)
switch (myLogLevel)
{
case LogLevel.Info: log.Info("..."); break;
case LogLevel.Warning: log.Warning("..."); break;
case LogLevel.Error: log.Error("..."); break;
case LogLevel.Critical: log.Critical("..."); break;
case LogLevel.Fatal: log.Fatal("..."); break;
}
#alternative 2
log.logLevel = myLogLevel; // not thread-safe (shared state)
log("...");
I mean sure, it is possible to specify LogLevel for each message, but
only at compile time (by the use of function names .Info, .Error, etc.).
This is not what I meant in my previous post. I rather meant the ability
to specify LogLevel using a runtime variable.
Then, each _compile-time_ specifiers like .Warning() or .Error()
should be just a syntactic sugar over log().
Just thought that the ability to add user defined log levels may be
useful too.
