Actually, here is how I would prefer it. Let’s see if it makes sense to anyone else.
FATAL - Hopefully, almost never logged because the system is crashing. ERROR - Something affecting the usability of the system occurred. WARN - Something not nice, but probably recoverable occurred. May lead to errors later. INFO - Something of general interest, but not necessarily significant. DIAG or DIAGNOSTIC - Events that can be used by operations or users to diagnose problems in the system. DEBUG - Used by developers for internal debugging. VERBOSE - Used to log minute details of the system. As its dictionary definition implies this is extremely chatty. TRACE - Adds tracing of method entry and exit, possibly object creation and initialization. I believe these should be enough for anybody. I still think CONFIG is a Marker at the INFO level. The advantage of being a Marker is that it can be enabled regardless of its level and enabling it doesn’t imply enabling other levels. Ralph On Jan 18, 2014, at 1:03 PM, Gary Gregory <garydgreg...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Sat, Jan 18, 2014 at 2:21 PM, Ralph Goers <ralph.go...@dslextreme.com> > wrote: > STEP? No clue what that means. > > Gary, if you want to implement VERBOSE between INFO and DEBUG I’m OK with > that, but what will that map to in SLF4J, etc. DEBUG? > > Sounds OK, I can see it as debug data, but for users, instead of developers. > > Gary > > And yes, something on the web site should document our recommended usage for > levels and markers. > > Ralph > > > > On Jan 18, 2014, at 10:53 AM, Gary Gregory <garydgreg...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Ah, my view of VERBOSE is that it is _more_ information, hence INFO < >> VERBOSE < DEBUG; while it sounds like Ralphs sees it as more DEBUG data. >> >> For me DEBUG data is going to be already verbose, even more than 'verbose'. >> >> What is interesting (to me) is that DEBUG is often misused based on this >> basic mix: debug messages can be for users *and/or* for developers, there is >> no distinction in the audience. >> >> For example, as a user, I want to get data to help me debug my configuration >> and my process. As a developer, I want to debug the code. These can be two >> very different set of data. >> >> But we do not have DEBUG_USER and DEBUG_DEV levels. I would see INFO next to >> VERBOSE as useful to users. Then DEBUG and TRACE useful for developers. Each >> app can have its convention of course, but it would be nice to have the >> distinction available through levels for developers to use. >> >> I see TRACE as method entry and exit type of logging, *very* *low* level >> stuff. >> >> We could also have both (ducking for projectiles): >> >> INFO >> VERBOSE >> DEBUG >> STEP >> TRACE >> >> Gary >> >> >> On Sat, Jan 18, 2014 at 12:47 PM, Ralph Goers <ralph.go...@dslextreme.com> >> wrote: >> Oops. I just noticed you proposed that VERBOSE be between INFO and DEBUG. >> Now that I don’t understand. My experience is that VERBOSE is usually more >> detailed than debug messages, not less. >> >> Ralph >> >> On Jan 18, 2014, at 9:44 AM, Ralph Goers <ralph.go...@dslextreme.com> wrote: >> >>> I understand the need for CONFIG. However it isn’t clear to me whether it >>> belongs between INFO and WARN or DEBUG and INFO. That is because it >>> typically would be used to log configuration during startup. That doesn’t >>> necessarily imply that you would then want to see all INFO messages as >>> well. Due to that, it would make more sense to me to make a CONFIG marker. >>> >>> I don’t really understand the point of FINE or FINER. >>> >>> On the other hand, VERBOSE does make a bit more sense, but I’m struggling >>> with how that is any different than TRACE. I guess the idea is that TRACE >>> is for control flow (entry, exit) and VERBOSE is for more detailed debug >>> messages? I suppose I can go along with that argument, but again one could >>> just as easily create a VERBOSE marker and attach it to either TRACE or >>> DEBUG. I guess I wouldn’t object if VERBOSE was added as a Level but I’m >>> not really convinced it is necessary either. >>> >>> Ralph >>> >>> >>> >>> On Jan 18, 2014, at 7:08 AM, Remko Popma <remko.po...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> I've always liked Ralph's argument that Markers give users much more >>>> flexibility than any predefined Levels. >>>> I would prefer to stick to the log4j/slf4j level names. >>>> >>>> >>>> On Sat, Jan 18, 2014 at 10:32 PM, Gary Gregory <garydgreg...@gmail.com> >>>> wrote: >>>> Interesting, I have been wanting a VERBOSE level better INFO and DEBUG. >>>> >>>> See >>>> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/logging-log4j-dev/201310.mbox/%3CCACZkXPxNwYbn__CbXUqFhC7e3Q=kee94j+udhe8+6jiubcz...@mail.gmail.com%3E >>>> >>>> You'll have to dig a little in that ref to find my proposal, sorry I'm on >>>> my phone ATM. >>>> >>>> It sounds like we see logging configuration messages differently though. I >>>> do not like the name CONFIG because it does not sound like a level to me. >>>> Otoh, many command lines have a verbose AND a debug switch. So it makes >>>> sense to me too have corresponding levels. >>>> >>>> Gary >>>> >>>> >>>> -------- Original message -------- >>>> From: Nick Williams >>>> Date:01/17/2014 23:50 (GMT-05:00) >>>> To: Log4J Developers List >>>> Subject: Web Issues, Logging Levels, and GA >>>> >>>> Wanted to update y'all. As you know, I've been very absent lately due to >>>> the book consuming every minute of my free time. I know I haven't been >>>> contributing my due, and for that please accept my sincerest apologies. >>>> The book is finally done (goes on sale next month!) and I can get back to >>>> regular life. I'm going to be out of town for the next week on a >>>> much-needed vacation with very limited access to email. I'll be back the >>>> weekend of January 25-26, and that weekend I will be spending almost the >>>> entire time finally dealing with the 8-10 web application-related bugs. >>>> After that, I don't see any encumbrances to releasing 2.0.0.GA. >>>> >>>> Except... >>>> >>>> Logging Levels. We kinda-sorta talked about this a few months ago, and a >>>> few months before that, and a few months before that, but we never >>>> actually DID anything about it. It's clear by now that my "extendable >>>> enum" proposal (that would be a drop-in replacement for and binary >>>> compatible with the current Level enum) is not going to be accepted. >>>> Absent any other proposals, I suggest we add the following new levels >>>> before GA: >>>> >>>> CONFIG - Between INFO and WARN, mapped to INFO for bridges to other >>>> frameworks that don't have an equivalent level >>>> >>>> FINE - Between DEBUG and TRACE, mapped to TRACE for bridges to other >>>> frameworks that don't have an equivalent level >>>> >>>> I'll let y'all chat about that over the next week. ;-) >>>> >>>> Be back soon, >>>> >>>> Nick >>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: log4j-dev-unsubscr...@logging.apache.org >>>> For additional commands, e-mail: log4j-dev-h...@logging.apache.org >>>> >>>> >>> >> >> >> >> >> -- >> E-Mail: garydgreg...@gmail.com | ggreg...@apache.org >> Java Persistence with Hibernate, Second Edition >> JUnit in Action, Second Edition >> Spring Batch in Action >> Blog: http://garygregory.wordpress.com >> Home: http://garygregory.com/ >> Tweet! http://twitter.com/GaryGregory > > > > > -- > E-Mail: garydgreg...@gmail.com | ggreg...@apache.org > Java Persistence with Hibernate, Second Edition > JUnit in Action, Second Edition > Spring Batch in Action > Blog: http://garygregory.wordpress.com > Home: http://garygregory.com/ > Tweet! http://twitter.com/GaryGregory
