Vincent Hennebert wrote:

> Victor Mote a écrit :
> > Actually there is not a level named "debug", although I might have 
> > defined that constant equal to "finest" in one of the 
> earlier versions.
> This does not appear in CVS. I would suggest you to redefine 
> such a constant to remove any ambiguity, as as you can see it 
> confused me.
> > Here is the
> > way I mapped the Avalon levels in the AvalonLogger implementation:
> > 
> > rg/axs l/common/
> > 
> > FINEST      debug
> > FINER       info
> > FINE        info
> > CONFIG      info
> > INFO        info
> > WARNING     warn
> > SEVERE      error
> Why not. Is I know now that debug corresponds to finest I'll 
> follow the same scheme for commons Log.
> > I don't really feel strongly about it either, but perhaps a 
> bit more 
> > strongly than you for the following reasons:
> > 1. From a sheer "standard" aspect, I wanted to stay as close to the 
> > Java logging system as possible. I would have used the 
> > java.util.logging.Level instances (for type safety) instead 
> of numeric 
> > constants, except for trying to retain Java 1.3 compatibility.
> > 2. I prefer to allow for more granularity rather than less (within 
> > reason), even if we don't think we need it right now.
> > 3. This is one of those things that you can change on 
> Tuesday to make 
> > one party happy, then change back again on Wednesday to 
> make another 
> > party happy, all for very little benefit. In short, there 
> is no way to 
> > make everyone happy.
> I understand your concerns and agree with them.
> > 
> > Also, I don't know if you noticed the following methods:
> >     info(String message)
> >     warn(String message)
> >     error(String message)
> >     debug(String message)
> > which correspond directly to the Avalon methods of the same 
> name, and 
> > are intended to provide a sort of mapping for them.
> Certainly, but I also have to map the logMessage method...
> > I don't mind adding one more
> > called trace(String message) if that would make the mapping concept 
> > more clear for you.
> Well, no need I think; as trace is below debug and debug is 
> mapped to finest, there is no corresponding log level for trace.
> I'm satisfied with your explanations. Please just add a 
> LEVEL_DEBUG constant and I'm OK with your interface.

OK, I have added the constant LEVEL_DEBUG back, and have also added a new
one called LEVEL_TRACE.
PLEASE NOTE: LEVEL_DEBUG is now equal to LEVEL_FINER (it previously was
equal to LEVEL_FINEST), and LEVEL_TRACE has been set equal to LEVEL_FINEST.
These changes have been made to better accommodate what I understand the
Commons Logging levels to be.

This makes the Avalon mapping look like this:
FINEST      debug
FINER       debug
FINE        info
CONFIG      info
INFO        info
WARNING     warn
SEVERE      error

Victor Mote

Reply via email to