It's been a popular request from the user community for as long as I've been using Log4j, which was about the time it came to Jakarta.
Prior to v1.2 it was a major pain to add the capability to do tracing because you would have to rewrite the Logger class, which meant you either forked the code-base, wrote wrappers, or did a lot of custom configurations to make your new Logger to be used instead of the standard one. Not fun. See http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=log4j-dev&m=101362470813799&w=2 However, with v1.2 it's now trivial to add the capability. Drop in the code I put in the FAQ at http://nagoya.apache.org/wiki/apachewiki.cgi?Log4JProjectPages/TraceLevel and when you want to log you simply do LOG.log(TraceLevel.TRACE, "My message"); That's a little more verbose than if you could say instead LOG.trace("My message"); but not a big deal by any stretch of the imagination. And if you want to do any further levels, it's just as easy. And since it's so easy to extend, there's no need to "pollute" the API log the JDK1.4 with a bunch of levels that a small percentage of people would actually use. That said, a trace level is and always has been so popular that it would seem prudent to provide it if for no other reason than to make it easier for people to use. Adding it is trivial, and -- as you said -- would finally put to rest the enormous amount of effort that's spent every few months by people fighting to put it in and those arguing for why it's been left out... -Jim Moore -----Original Message----- From: Dennis Cook [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, October 30, 2003 11:19 PM To: Log4J Developers List Subject: Re: Rationale for TRACE-level/priority. The strange part about this whole issue is that the resistance amount of resistance to adding another level. I started monitoring this list about a month ago and when I asked about the possibility that of adding TRACE, it was articulated that lack of interest from the user base was a big factor. Since that time, this topic seems to keep coming backup up on this list. The amount of change necessary is miniscule when compare to the amount of time fighting its inclusion. 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. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
