Costin wrote: > You're right - I've overlooked this aspect. Would you consider adding a > trace level then to slf4j :) ? > I recall reading about this in the official log4j documentation and I see > that in the end, it did make it to the api. > I understand that this is not log4j but still, it shows that there is > demand for this logging level plus it makes migration easier since nothing > has to be lost in the transition. > Debug versus trace might seem like a small matter but I actually bumped > into some problems since I have a code base where trace is used for > low-level details such as loops or discovery and placing them as the same > level as debug yields enormous amounts of logs. > Basically, I end up with all or nothing and I need something in between.
The TRACE level has been requested many times in the past, both in log4j and in SLF4J. I guess that since people keep asking for it, we may as well yield to popular demand. :-) BYW, would it be possible for you to provide a reference to the class generating the trace logs? -- Ceki Gülcü Logback: The reliable, generic, fast and flexible logging framework for Java. http://logback.qos.ch _______________________________________________ user mailing list [email protected] http://www.slf4j.org/mailman/listinfo/user
