I too wanted a TRACE level, but I found that it only took about 30 minute to change three files in version 1.2.8 to add it. As for domains in version 1.3 providing a better alternative, well I would sure like to see some description about them. I would also like to know if this new "domain" concept is going to replace the existing logger/level concept. And if it is not going to be a replacement, maybe we can fight for TRACE to be included in version 1.3.
On Wednesday, October 29, 2003, at 10:39 AM, Ceki Gülcü wrote:
Endre,
A number of user expressed their desire to see the TRACE level added. However, please note that log4j domains (to be introduced in log4j 1.3) should provide a much better alternative to adding a TRACE level or any other level for that matter.
At 06:07 PM 10/29/2003 +0100, Endre Stølsvik wrote:
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 ..
What about 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.
Because we have a better alternative.
Endre - a long-time user of log4j.
and a log4j contributor.
-- Ceki Gülcü
For log4j documentation consider "The complete log4j manual" ISBN: 2970036908 http://www.qos.ch/shop/products/clm_t.jsp
--------------------------------------------------------------------- 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]
