Howdy, >To separate concerns. Because trace info is a specific level, more minutia >than debug info.
That's your use-case, not mine. Both are debug for me. I never want one without the other. theValue=... is useless if I don't know what method it's in. >Having TRACE in Log4j means: >1) No requirement to extend Log4j on each project; it is an intrinsic >logging type. No such requirement exists in any organization I've ever worked, people use debug-level statement without extending log4j. People who use JDK 1.4 don't use the trace level. But that's only my experience, which is no less or more meaningful than anyone else's. >3) People want it, it does not break backwards compatibility, and it adds >one more level of logging clarity. Convince me that a majority wants it. How come it doesn't come up more often on the log4j user list? >4) It matches levels with commons-logging. Why does it have trace? ;-) SOLELY because JDK 1.4 has it and commons-logging was designed to map to both log4j and commons-logging (among other logging kits). As Paul said, this is an eternal debate, kind of like whether to include version numbers of a release in the jar file name. Yoav Shapira This e-mail, including any attachments, is a confidential business communication, and may contain information that is confidential, proprietary and/or privileged. This e-mail is intended only for the individual(s) to whom it is addressed, and may not be saved, copied, printed, disclosed or used by anyone else. If you are not the(an) intended recipient, please immediately delete this e-mail from your computer system and notify the sender. Thank you. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
