I got lost in the discussion. Can someone please clarify... Is the custom logging interface a nice-to-have or a requirement of the system?
I was hoping simply someone could write this (pseudocode below): logger.log(MyCustomLevels.LEVEL1, "message"); ...so no different interface should be required, right? Can't someone just pass in their log level directly without using one of the named-log-level convenience methods? On Sun, Jan 26, 2014 at 8:37 PM, Matt Sicker <boa...@gmail.com> wrote: > Now Level can't be used in an annotation. Since it supports string names > for levels, should I just use Level.toLevel? > > > On 26 January 2014 19:55, Ralph Goers <ralph.go...@dslextreme.com> wrote: > >> I think I must be misunderstanding the part about “If those levels were >> added…”. I don’t understand how a level can be added to a class from the >> config such that it is usable by a programmer at compile time. >> >> Ralph >> >> On Jan 26, 2014, at 5:24 PM, Scott Deboy <scott.de...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> Couldn't we no-op instead of throw if the same identical level were >> registered? >> >> If those levels were then added to the same custom level class from the >> config, could we use that single class in the logger calls? >> On Jan 26, 2014 5:15 PM, "Ralph Goers" <ralph.go...@dslextreme.com> >> wrote: >> >>> I am certain I could create a LevelPlugin that would allow you to define >>> one or more Levels in the configuration, but to use that Level the user >>> would have to code: >>> >>> logger.log(Level.toLevel(“DIAG”), “hello world”); >>> >>> In order to directly reference the level it has to be declared as a >>> static from somewhere and it can only be instantiated a single time, so >>> creating it from the configuration will prevent that. >>> >>> Ralph >>> >>> On Jan 26, 2014, at 4:03 PM, Scott Deboy <scott.de...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> I have one goal: to remove my request for new built in levels by >>> allowing the levels to be defined strictly via configuration. I agree there >>> may be some hurdles but that's my goal. >>> >>> I'd like to avoid the requirement that users provide their own level >>> implementation or use a different API. >>> >>> Scott >>> >>>> >>>> >>> >> > > > -- > Matt Sicker <boa...@gmail.com> > -- Cheers, Paul
