I agree, adding a TRACE level would make debugging easier. As FATAL and ERROR are both about errors, DEBUG should have a more detailed level.
--- Robert Hedin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> escreveu: > I've just got to chime in here-- I've used Log4J for quite some time > now and > the one thing that has bothered me about it is its wonderful > granularity > during normal operations-- FATAL, ERROR, WARN, INFO; each provide for > information of a particular nature, that nature is fairly obvious, > and > lesser important messages can be suppressed if you just don't care > about it. > > Unfortunately, only one exists when trying to troubleshoot problems- > DEBUG. > There have been many times that I've longed for one more level (e.g. > TRACE > or similar) that would allow for finer grained logging. The lack of > this has > caused me, on more than one occasion, to start using INFO for > debugging > information just because the quantity of information output during > DEBUG > would have a tendency to hide the jewels I'm looking. In one case, > the > difference would be between checking out a 250k log file vs 100M log > file. > There are times that the extra verbosity is needed, but not always. > > If it's not obvious, I'm very much for a TRACE level. > > rob hedin > nds systems, lc > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Jensen, Jeff" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "Log4J Users List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Monday, September 22, 2003 7:22 PM > Subject: RE: Plans for supporting a build in level of "trace" > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Shapira, Yoav [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: Monday, September 22, 2003 10:59 AM > > To: Log4J Users List > > Subject: RE: Plans for supporting a build in level of "trace" > > > > > > > > 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. > > Yes, both are debug info for me too. I want to turn off trace info > when not > needed to increase the clarity and value of the logs. > > Your statement: > "theValue=... is useless if I don't know what method it's in" > is irrelevant to the trace level argument. The issue exists for any > logged > message at any level. (The only solutions I know are to either > define it in > the ConversionPattern, prefix each message logged, or use NDC [which > seems a > little wrong to me] - how do you solve it?). > > > So you (and others) are happy to overload the debug level. Others, > including me, are not! That is too much info on one level. "That's > your > use case, not mine"! :-) > > > > >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? > > Perhaps others are silent on it like me, who has used Log4J for a > couple of > years and has always missed it. > > In my current project, DEBUG messages containing trace info are > sometimes > deleted/commented out after awhile, when things are working well in > that > product section, possibly re-enabled when needed. > > This process goes against the crux of Log4j, even its "marketing": > disable > the level when not desired, don't delete/comment out code. > > > OK FOLKS! Please email the list if you want it. Yoav said "Convince > me > that a majority wants it"! > > > > As Paul said, this is an eternal debate, kind of like whether > > to include > > version numbers of a release in the jar file name. > > I half agree. I agree because usage of the logging levels is subject > to > interpretation. What each level means to one does not necessarily > mean the > same to another. However, I do see some consistency applied at my > various > clients. > > I disagree because tracing is a finer grained and different message > type > than debug. Hence my interpretation! Hence its difference name and > different concept than a general debug message. I and others see it > as a > missing level to Log4j. > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > ===== <Eduardo Issao Ito/> <Summa Technologies/> --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
