Hi Endre,
We're all charmed that you've found log4j to be generally useful for your
application development endeavors. That it doesn't do everything you'd
like it to is a concern, but not necessarily a call to action (unlike a bug
in what log4j currently does). I read Jim's suggestion that log4j may be
extended to support your TRACE needs to carry two messages:
1. (explicit) You can extend log4j to support TRACE.
2. (implicit) You should extend log4j to support TRACE.
You seem to have only picked up the first one. TRACE may be a desirable
feature. But log4j is hardly an unacceptable tool without it. If log4j
was a commercial enterprise and you a paying customer, you would have good
reason to demand a solution to all your tracing needs on threat of
migrating to the competition.
With many open source projects, the implementation of good ideas such as
yours is often delegated to the proposer of the idea. This "squeaky wheel
gets the grease" practices has the following benefits:
1. The proposer has stronger motivation for working on the feature.
2. The proposer has a clearer notion of the typical usage scenario
(and hence requirements).
Most new features of log4j have originated this way. This route would
require involvement on your part likely to be time consuming and thankless.
The easier route would be Jim's suggestion of adding your own private
extension.
My association with the log4j community has revealed no two people seem to
agree on what constitutes "the ideal logging tool." That's why
extensibility of log4j is an important characteristic.
- Paul
Paul Glezen
Consulting IT Specialist
IBM Software Services for WebSphere
818 539 3321
AIM: pfglezenibm
YIM: pfglezen
ICQ: 179406599
Endre Stølsvik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> on 10/29/2003 09:07:21 AM
Please respond to "Log4J Developers List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Log4J Developers List <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
cc:
Subject: Re: Rationale for TRACE-level/priority.
On Wed, 29 Oct 2003, Jim Moore wrote:
| While I agree not having TRACE built in is a significant deficiency in
what
| Log4j provides, Log4j DOES make it trivial to add and is addressed in the
| FAQ. For your convenience, here's a direct link to the relevant section
in
| the FAQ:
| http://nagoya.apache.org/wiki/apachewiki.cgi?Log4JProjectPages/TraceLevel
As I also mentioned such approaches in the post, didn't you see that?
That is not good enough. I don't want to make some stupid wrapper or
whatnot - I can change the entire logging system instead then. I want to
use a PROPER logging-tool, and I'm fed up with log4j not having Trace -
the most needed logging level of them all except for debug.
Commons logging ..
|
| Btw: This has been brought up many times on the log4j-user list (where
| comments and questions like this should be posted), so a quick search of
the
| list archives would've pointed it out...
I know. I just wanted to chime in..
And WITH all that noise, WHY NOT add it? It seems REALL REALLY silly to
me.
Endre - a long-time user of log4j.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
