On Wed, 18 May 2005, Ceki Gülcü wrote: | At 20:37 5/18/2005, you wrote: | >There seems to be fairly broad support for it. No one voted -1 for the | >proposal. | > | >It is in addition to the constants and methods that are already there, so it | >(hopefully) meets the requirement of not being harmful to existing | >deployments. Developers that have extended to support trace may have | >issues, but they can stay at 1.2.11 until they are ready to take the plunge | >with 1.2.12 or 1.3. | > | >I guess, define "everyone" for me. | | I'd lean against adding the TRACE level to the 1.2 branch. Scott and Jake | may feel the same way. In my opinion, the TRACE level promotes bad habits, | especially in light of the confusion between TRACE and DEBUG.
Are you really serious?? For real?! | There is also the question of backward compatibility over the wire. If | TRACE was introduced in 1.2.11 it would be incompatible with versions | 1.2.9 and earlier. This is a relevant-er question. But you seem to be just STUCK with the notion that TRACE -shouldn't- be added, just because you personally hate it. You have this domains-thing going, which lots of us users DO NOT see the broad need for (I, as an example, use a functional "domain-style" category-tree already, not based on class-names), while we DO see the absolute need for TRACE (the top-most "developer level"), _even if domains are introduced_. Who else than you have a problem with where trace are compared with debug? Why don't you, as I've asked a dozen times before, ask your user-community to vote about this, instead of just bulldozing over them??? The fantastic logging-framework that log4j is, isn't really useful IN ITSELF, people use it WITHIN their applications, remember? Because of the rather non-revision-ish new feature that TRACE is, my point was to make the 1.3 as 1.2+Trace-and-other-small-stuff, then make 1.4/2.0 the next leap, with a timespan of apparently AT LEAST half-a-year (man this project seems stuck by now..). But WHATEVER works for you developers, just get TRACE in. That is the ONLY thing I feel is missing from log4j, as far as I can tell (Chainsaw 2 can already be used with 1.2, so I'm happy there). And I -actually- think I have a bunch of users behind me in this specific issue, really. Just to stop any idiotic "if you have an itch"-shit that's bound to come up with such a whine-mail as this is: I've made the patch, and I have submitted it, twice. The mere existence of the "fork" with trace embedded _should_ stop this discussion. I have nothing to do with -that one-, although I have suggested a fork before: Trace4Log4J, here we come.. On an unrelated note: will Category (finally) be gone in log4j 1.3/1.4/1.5/2? Endre --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
