Quick note:
I was really pleased to see this suggestion - because I'm currently dealing with a number of issued concerning the OpenORB project and basically, the notion of debugging priority is the only thing I'm missing to be able to do a clean migration from what currently exists to something rational. Please consider this as strong plus one to the addition of logging levels. Cheers, Steve, > -----Original Message----- > From: Peter Donald [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Thursday, 10 January, 2002 14:07 > To: Avalon Developers List > Subject: Re: Divergence from Avalon (was Re: [RT] Is Poolable Harmful?) > > > On Thu, 10 Jan 2002 14:09, Paulo Gaspar wrote: > > Hi again, answer inline: > > Hi ! > > > > * consider adding a Level object to logger and extra methods > > > > > > log( Level, message ) > > > log( Level, message, exception ) > > > > Argh! I used to believe on that one and then went the Avalon > > way. I find the interface much cleaner. > > > > Which experience makes you change your mind on this one? > > basically when you have other objects that adapt from some other > source to log messages. For instance say you have the standard > output of process redirected into a logger or redirting data from > another toolkit or whatever. > > -- > Cheers, > > Pete > > *------------------------------------------------------* > | Hlade's Law: If you have a difficult task, give it | > | to a lazy person -- they will find an easier | > | way to do it. | > *------------------------------------------------------* > > > -- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: > <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
