On Friday, October 31, 2003, at 11:10 AM, Ceki Gülcü wrote:
At 08:29 AM 10/31/2003 -0800, Dennis Cook wrote:
2) make a personal issue out of this topic
Since all use of any level is subjective, a refusal to add a TRACE level, that seems to be a highly request feature, can only be seen as a "personal" issue already. It has already been established that domains will not replace levels, so for those that may not have the option of moving to the use of domains, a TRACE level is still an unmet need.
How was it established that domains will not replace levels?
Maybe that was just an assumption, on my part, but I did ask in a previous message if domains were going to replace levels, Also the release number, of 1.3 lead me to believe that this was a evolutionary not revolutionary change. If I am mistaken, then I would have to agree with Toby Butzon, that the next version is should be a 2.0 version since its use with existing code would be precluded.
I think I tend to agree with the next version of Log4j being called 2.0 rather than 1.3 since so much new functionality will be there. However, I have to disagree with your assumption that use of 1.3 or 2.0 with existing code would be precluded. No one has ever mentioned throwing out backward compatibility. As far as I know, Levels will not be going away, even if alternatives are being developed.
Lets be realistic about this issue. A vote is not needed here, adding a trace level would not change any existing functionality.
Those that do not want it do not have to use it. I can only see two valid reasons for not including TRACE as a natively supported level.
1) No resources available to implement, test or maintain the change. 2) Change is incompatible with or contrary to current functionality
There is also:
3) Change works contrary to future functionality.
If an additional level is contrary to future functionality, then the existing levels would also be contrary, which brings me back to the feeling that this next version is a 2.0 release. If this is the case, what will be the future for version .12.n?
I think you misunderstand. It seems to me that logging domains will provide all the functionality and more that levels provided in the past. So, in that sense, yes, "existing levels would be contrary" to future functionality. But this is an issue of backward compatibility. Log4j will keep the old levels around to keep from breaking peoples existing code. Existing code has no dependence on a Log4j TRACE level. So, while existing levels are contrary, they are necessary. The TRACE level is currently not necessary. See the difference?
Furthermore, assuming that domains will actually cover all the functionality that Levels did, but in a more flexible and extensible way, why bloat Log4j with continued development the old, less sophisticated, less flexible, paradigm of levels?
I would think that any other reason for rejection would leaning toward the "personal". Since the addition of a TRACE level could hardly be seen as being incompatible, would a contribution of the patch to add the native support for the TRACE level be accepted from an "non-comitter"?
The implementation question is hardly an issue here.
Some users are asking for the TRACE level. My response was: please wait for the domain functionality to crystallize and then, if you remain unconvinced, let us have this discussion again.
Now I am confused, if you would be willing to entertain discussion at a later time, then how would a new level be contrary to the next release
If it is determined by you, the user, (after actually experiencing domains) that domains aren't actually all of what they are cracked up to be and you make a good case that levels should continue to be the future of Log4j development efforts, then levels would no longer be contrary to the future; they would be the future. Current thinking in the Log4j developer camp is that domains will supercede levels, so additions to levels have been put on hold pending future findings.
I think it is very unfair to qualify our reaction on this matter as condescending or trivializing [the requested change]. If my memory serves me correctly, this is the first flame war on this mailing list, ever. I am actually not sure what to make of it.
First, I would hardly consider what I have been reading, for the past month, as "flame war".
Maybe not a "flame war", but certainly an emotional battle of wills. It hasn't degenerated into stuff like "well, you suck", but it has managed to stray off the normally calm, cool, and collected discussions that we're used to.
I may be presumptuous here, but I think it was my query when I first joined the list that might have started this latest round, but there have been several threads. It was stated that a valid case had not yet been made for a new level. I feel that most of what I have seen here has been a very civil attempt to make that case. There seems to be some difference of opinion on where the new "development level" fits (above or below DEBUG), but I think the case for another development level has been clearly made.
What is currently holding up a TRACE level from being added to Log4j proper are the following (IMO, of course)...
1. Many feel that the current levels are quite adequate for the job. Just enough and not more.
2. Advocates of TRACE can't quite agree what it is to be used for (as you alluded to above).
3. Many use DEBUG for what you insist on using TRACE for and are fine with that.
4. logging domains look to be the future and, hence, the focus of Log4j development. As such, attention to older paradigms fall by the wayside (other than keeping the status quo for backward compatibility).
5. Given the above (especially #4), adding another level to a future release of Log4j could only be considered bloat.
I never said your (or anyones) reaction was condescending, I meant no personal disrespect to anyone. I think the term is used was "trivialize" which means "to assign little significance or value". I kept seeing how "domains" were going to solve the problem, but I don't think they will be feasible for many of us.
I never picked up on any disrespect from you, but you did try to make your point by raising your voice rather than raising the level of discussion. I'll leave it at that.
I for one have a lot of code to maintain based upon the levels concepts. A wholesale conversion to use domains would not be possible. Your comment here about a new level being contrary to future functionality (domains?) actually scares me a little. So I personally would like a little more clarification. Will the levels concept be supported in the next release?
I haven't discussed this personally with Ceki, but I until I hear differently, I think the simple answer is "yes", levels *will* be supported in the next version of Log4j, possibly deprecated, though. The idea being eventual migration to logging domains, especially with newer codebases that don't yet have any dependency on levels. Consequently, the avoidance of adding new levels will probably encourage migration to logging domains.
Jake
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
