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?
>>
>>
>
>
>
