I have a couple of thoughts for you, but both violate at least one restriction you
placed on the solution! The ideas may lead you to something better than you currently
have though.
1) Use Template Method pattern.
You mentioned not wanting to change code, and this solution does require that.
Thank you for that excellent summary! I am happy to see the resulting momentum and
volume on the need for a TRACE level. Clearly the DEBUG level is overloaded (and not
in the OO sense ;-)!
-Original Message-
From: Sullivan, Sean C - MWT [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday,
Indeed! The pre-release marketing bit Ceki did was a nice little tease... ;-)
Logging minds want to know!
Having a new domains feature solve the fixed list of types issue(s) sounds great.
Hopefully it is cross-dimensional to coordinate not only a priority/level but a
functional area as
For any tips - Are you familiar with the Struts ActionMessages, ActionMessage,
ActionErrors, and ActionError classes and the Struts html:messages tag?
You may want to consider using them instead of pushing log messages to the user.
Lemme know if you are not familiar and would like further info.
Have you thought about using Logger.l7dlog(), sharing the key with the ActionMessage,
and wrapping both in the appropriate log level check? This will enable the Log4j
config to control both the log and user messages. E.g.
if (LOG.isInfoEnabled())
{
String msgKey = the.key;
I also have wanted a TRACE level supported in Log4j for quite awhile. I hope it is
added soon...
-Original Message-
From: Dennis Cook [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, September 20, 2003 8:24 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Plans for supporting a build in level of trace
I
-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
-Original Message-
From: Shapira, Yoav [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, September 22, 2003 11:03 AM
To: Log4J Users List
Subject: RE: Plans for supporting a build in level of trace
Howdy,
I agree that this debate will carry on forever, because we all work
How would we use this component? Would it be a full replacement for the standard
distribution, or an adder jar? I imagine a full replacement, but one must not
assume...:-) I would expect it to be the same version as the standard release with
the one file difference.
Awareness and
