The point I was trying to make is that most people consider the word "fatal" to be more serious than "warn". If you have a fatal accident...you're dead. Your other emailing detailing the order you need the log levels to be makes more sense.
--- Hollywood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > a) That was an example > b) Just because you can not think of a reason to do something, does > not mean > someone else does not have requirements to do just that. > > "Mixing" up the values is not a solid solution, it is just a plain > hack. > Not to mention, definetly a nightmare for future maintainers of the > codebase. > > This question was asked specifically because Niko, awhile back, > mentioned > that the re-ordering of the logging levels was something that was > being > looked at. > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Ron Grabowski" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "Log4NET User" <[email protected]> > Sent: Wednesday, July 06, 2005 12:11 PM > Subject: Re: Configuration of Levels > > > >I can't think of a good reason why someone would want to make WARN > more > > serious than FATAL. Wouldn't that make it difficult for future > > maintainers? > > > > Perhaps you could write your own Logger implementation and have it > > internally mix-up values as you see fit: > > > > DEBUG -> DEBUG > > WARN -> INFO > > ERROR -> WARN > > FATAL -> ERROR > > INFO -> FATAL > > > > --- Hollywood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > >> I'll clarify my original question: > >> > >> Has the configuration of logging Levels ORDER been implemented > yet > >> or is it > >> still static, i.e. being able to say that the logging level is > >> VERBOSE, > >> DEBUG, WARN, ERROR, FATAL, TRACE, INFO rather that what has been > >> hardcoded > >> into the log4* system? > >> > >> ----- Original Message ----- > >> From: "Ron Grabowski" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >> To: "Log4NET User" <[email protected]> > >> Sent: Wednesday, July 06, 2005 11:18 AM > >> Subject: Re: Configuration of Levels > >> > >> > >> > There has been example code in CVS since January 2004: > >> > > >> > http://tinyurl.com/9atgc > >> > > >> > > > http://cvs.apache.org/viewcvs.cgi/logging-log4net/examples/net/1.0/Extensibility/TraceLogApp/cs/src/TraceLogApp.cs?rev=1.3&view=log > >> > > >> > I think it was possible with 1.2.0 beta 8 which means its > existed > >> since > >> > at least 2003. > >> > > >> > --- Hollywood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> > > >> >> Has the configuration of logging Levels been implemented yet? > Or > >> is > >> >> it still > >> >> static? > >> >> > >> >> > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > >> > > > > > > > >
