Howdy, Dude, writing as if you've had too much coffee this morning is not going to win you any fans ;)
OK, so you think TRACE is a necessary evil. Add it yourself to your own little log4j distribution, or trace4log4j, or whatever you want to call it, and be done with it. Why the extra aggravation? ;) Yoav Shapira Millennium ChemInformatics >-----Original Message----- >From: Endre Stĝlsvik [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >Sent: Thursday, October 30, 2003 11:45 AM >To: Log4J Developers List >Subject: Re: Rationale for TRACE-level/priority. > >On Thu, 30 Oct 2003, Ceki Gülcü wrote: > >| Imagine you had another way besides the DEBUG level to categorize logging >| statements (intended for debugging). For example, imagine you could >| categorize logging statements related to the servlet lifecycle, >application >| configuration, tcp connections, database calls etc. Imagine you could >| enable/disable all database related logs across all your classes, or if >you >| desired, in only some of your classes? > >I get the point. > >I ALREADY DO THAT! > >I use categories for this. The categories in my system aren't classnames, >I make them in a LoggingCategories static file with lots of Strings in >them, concatenating each type to form a hierachy of of "domains" if you >will. > >Also, sometimes some log-statements are output to several Loggers - I >assume your Domains-stash will fix this magically, right? Just "add" a >logger to the relevant Domains? Multi-node-in-the-hierarchy-tree logging >with one log statement? > > - I'd still want trace!!! - > >How would the domains help me with my initial concern: needing extremely >verbose information about the thing I'm currently working with (whether >it's new code or fixing/debugging or extending old code), while having >"heavy" debug information for the rest of the system, to get relevant >context for the trace-parts. Argh, this seems so blatantly obvious to me!! > >| >| That's what domains bring you and that is why I think TRACE will be >| redundant in 1.3. > >No, it won't! What about all the other levels? Remove them too, then? Why >would trace be left redundant, but not the other levels? > >| >| >I'm forking off the "trace4log4j" project RSN - totally tracking the >log4j >| >package, only adding trace! Bet I'll get the entire user base right >away! >| >| I somehow doubt it but you have every right to fork the project. Good >luck. > >Oh, thanks! > >When I've got about 50% of the user base, I hope we can come together >again! ;) > >| > >| >Ceki: where's the Domains stuff? In CVS?? Can't seem to find it. >| >| Domains will be presented at ApacheCon 2003, Nov 18, in Las Vegas. > >Hmm.. This is definately a sidetrack to this discussion, but this one was >a little startling: Is log4j your own little baby, not meant for my eyes >to see? Open Source toghether with "revelations" and similar stuff at >Conferences doesn't seem like the most perfect match for my taste.. > >| >| By the way, only 15 days left for registration!!! > >Would be excellent being there, but I'm in Norway.. It's a little long way >for my wallet.. > >Endre. > >--------------------------------------------------------------------- >To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] This e-mail, including any attachments, is a confidential business communication, and may contain information that is confidential, proprietary and/or privileged. This e-mail is intended only for the individual(s) to whom it is addressed, and may not be saved, copied, printed, disclosed or used by anyone else. If you are not the(an) intended recipient, please immediately delete this e-mail from your computer system and notify the sender. Thank you. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
