> 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?
Here's where I would do something like:
public class MyConfigurableObject {
private static final Logger LOG =
Logger.getLogger(MyConfigurableObject.class);
private static final Logger CONFIG = Logger.getLogger("Config." +
MyConfigurableObject.class);
......
This way you can control the logging configuration on a per logical
component ("Config") way, or on a per class+config way (using properties
example):
log4j.logger.Config=INFO
log4j.logger.Config.com.mycompany.MyConfigurableObject=DEBUG
I think those that see TRACE as NOT useful are probably doing something
like the above, where those that do see TRACE as useful are probably
struggling with how to filter things. I could be wrong though.
cheers,
Paul
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
