As for domains, I think that with careful use of logger names, you already have the capability for function are logging within the present release. But, even then you still need levels within functional areas so the need for TRACE is still valid. Also, wholesale moves from level use in version 1.2.8 to domains in version 1.3 are probably not feasible.
On Thursday, October 30, 2003, at 09:06 AM, Endre Stĝlsvik wrote:
On Thu, 30 Oct 2003, Shapira, Yoav wrote:
| | Howdy, Dude, writing as if you've had too much coffee this morning is | not going to win you any fans ;)
I've only had about three cups today. Might be too little coffee that's the problem..
|
| 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.
The deal is that I am NOT the only one that wants this. It is rather silly
to fork the code for this little thing, isn't it?? It's half an hours work
with three classes, apparently. But I think that this one little method
makes the whole system (quite) a bit less worth - and that's sad, because
the rest of the system is totally excellent.
| Why the extra aggravation? ;)
To try to induce some changes / discussions. I know I'm not the only one!
There are others like me! I'M NOT A FREAK!!
Endre.
--------------------------------------------------------------------- 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]
