Yoav,
         
        About your response....

        [my original]
        >>*     To give an idea of how I think the levels should be used,
This
        is
        >>how I have extended the Level class.  I have added the following
        levels:
        >>
        >>      CONFIG: Configuration information- system/app specific
        properties,
        >>details of connections made (CORBA domains, databases, JMS)
        >>      PERF: Performance metrics- our wrapper prepends "perf." to
the
        >>category to allow any performance stats to be handled via a
specific
        >>appender.
        ><snip, though poster goes on with INFO_LOW, INFO_MED, INFO_HIGH,
and a
        wrapper to map things around />

        [your response]
        >The point is that you could extend this class to meet your needs
easily.
        > also agree with Elias' point that you could use a PERF logger and
a
        >CONFIG logger rather than a custom level for those, but that's not
the
        >main point.  So this is a good example of a very specific use-case
that
        >you have, which wasn't raised that much even among TRACE proponents
(the
        >majority of which think DEBUG/TRACE is good but FINE/FINER/FINEST
is
        >not).

        You refer to Elias' point - did he reply also? I didn't get any
response from him.

        When you say to use a PERF logger, do you mean use a fixed logger
name everywhere for logging performance info?  Eg.
Logger.getLogger(SystemConstants.PERFLOG_NAME).  I didnt really consider
this, and it would probably work really well for PERF as it didnt really fit
into a natural spot in the Level hierarchy - it's placement was an arbitrary
decision and I used a wrapper property to enable/disable.  This approach
sounds appropriate for AUDIT too, which is a new requirement that I am
looking at using the log4j framework to provide.

        For CONFIG though, not so sure.   Having it controllable on a
package by package basis along with the other levels seems right.  Also
seems logical to show/hide in logFactor5 the same way as any other level.
However if seperately named loggers is the recommended design pattern to use
I will reconsider it.  Is this the case or did I misunderstand?

        Thanks

        Simon




GOLDMAN SACHS JBWERE PTY LTD DISCLAIMER

Goldman Sachs JBWere Pty Ltd and its related entities distributing this document and 
each of their respective directors, officers and agents ("the Goldman Sachs JBWere 
Group") believe that the information contained in this document is correct and that 
any estimates, opinions, conclusions or recommendations contained in this document are 
reasonably held or made as at the time of compilation.  However, no warranty is made 
as to the accuracy or reliability of any estimates, opinions, conclusions, 
recommendations (which may change without notice) or other information contained in 
this document and, to the maximum extent permitted by law, the Goldman Sachs JBWere 
Group disclaims all liability and responsibility for any direct or indirect loss or 
damage which may be suffered by any recipient through relying on anything contained or 
omitted from this document.

Goldman Sachs JBWere does not represent or warrant the attached files are free from 
computer viruses or other defects.  The attached files are provided, and may only be 
used, on the basis that the user assumes all responsibility for any loss, damage or 
consequence resulting directly or indirectly from use.


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Reply via email to