We don't need to scuttle the new levels to support extensible levels. Gary's change is essentially a 'usability enhancement' - if anything close to 80% of the folks who might want custom levels can use new built-in levels, that's an API win in my book. Custom levels help the other 20%, and I'm supportive of that.
Also please keep in mind this doesn't really add to our maintenance burden, which I think may be contributing to the concern about adding new levels. Gary already did the heavy lifting, and the change to something other than an enum for levels would just be a bit more work because of this addition. Scott On 1/23/14, Paul Benedict <pbened...@apache.org> wrote: > Let's not lose sight why the "extensible enum" discussion occurred. > Speaking solely for myself, I am not fond of the new logging levels; but I > don't want the framework from preventing them. The intention behind this > proposal was to get agreement by scuttling the new levels but allowing > anyone to add them in their own private code. > > > On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 11:39 AM, Gary Gregory > <garydgreg...@gmail.com>wrote: > >> Well said Scott. >> >> These are two separate features. >> >> Gary >> >> >> -------- Original message -------- >> From: Scott Deboy >> Date:01/23/2014 11:49 (GMT-05:00) >> To: Log4J Developers List >> Subject: Re: Levels added in revision 1560602 >> >> I don't think the two have to be mutually exclusive - we can enhance >> 'custom level' support via a new mechanism and add built-in support >> for the new levels as well. >> >> I personally don't think they're confusing, as folks have mentioned, >> httpd uses them. >> >> I used to think of levels as 'severities', but that's really only true >> for a subset of levels we have now (trace isn't really a severity, >> right? and fatal, well, it's never used), so my gut says these new >> levels support the 80/20 rule for 'custom levels' >> >> Chainsaw/ExpressionFilter etc (assuming log4j2 support) will have to >> deal with this eventually (level > DEBUG) etc, but I don't think >> that's a big deal. >> >> Scott >> >> >> On 1/23/14, Ralph Goers <ralph.go...@dslextreme.com> wrote: >> > Remko, are you saying that if we make the changes proposed in the other >> > thread that we should not add any of these levels to the new Level >> > class? >> > >> > Ralph >> > >> > On Jan 23, 2014, at 1:22 AM, Remko Popma <remko.po...@gmail.com> wrote: >> > >> >> Gary, >> >> >> >> Would you mind rolling back the changes you made in revision 1560602 >> (and >> >> perhaps r1560356)? >> >> This change added DIAG, VERBOSE, NOTICE log levels to many files. >> >> I don't think we all agreed on that approach and we have some >> >> promising >> >> ideas for an alternative solution that should satisfy everyone. >> >> >> >> Best regards, >> >> Remko >> > >> > >> > --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: log4j-dev-unsubscr...@logging.apache.org >> > For additional commands, e-mail: log4j-dev-h...@logging.apache.org >> > >> > >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: log4j-dev-unsubscr...@logging.apache.org >> For additional commands, e-mail: log4j-dev-h...@logging.apache.org >> >> > > > -- > Cheers, > Paul > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: log4j-dev-unsubscr...@logging.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: log4j-dev-h...@logging.apache.org
