> I can see your viewpoint, but I think that it is sometimes necessary. > What if my component logs to 25 categories but I give you an easy way to > cascade it by calling the main setLevel().
Such complex component MUST have some configuration mechanism for the logger. The logger may have too. With Log4J there is a XML configuration file and with Avalon's LogKit there is a similar mechanism that is still hiding in another part of the API. But I also wrote: > > Notice that I believe in being able to set the level in some > > common configuration mechanism, just not on the interface. Which means that there should be a (maybe optional) logging mechanism that helps you configure that kind of thing. But after that, you just use a Logger with no setLevel(). Anyway, if by the People demand the setLevel() must exist, then I still think it should always work, whatever was the original level. Otherwise it even looks broken! Have fun, Paulo Gaspar > -----Original Message----- > From: Scott Sanders [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Wednesday, January 09, 2002 8:23 PM > > > I can see your viewpoint, but I think that it is sometimes necessary. > What if my component logs to 25 categories but I give you an easy way to > cascade it by calling the main setLevel(). > > Scott > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Paulo Gaspar [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > Sent: Wednesday, January 09, 2002 11:39 AM > > > > > > I personally think you should avoid changing the log level > > after the configuration step. > > > > However, I also agree that if you call setLevel() is because > > you really want to change the level and are supposed to know > > what you are doing. > > > > The 2 alternatives that make more sense to me: > > - A setLevel() that always changes the level; > > > > - No setLevel() at all. > > The (Avalon) wrappers I use work this way and I never miss that > > thing. I am not sure if it is such a common need that it should > > have a place in this common interface. > > > > Notice that I believe in being able to set the level in some > > common configuration mechanism, just not on the interface. > > > > > > Have fun, > > Paulo Gaspar > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Scott Sanders [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > > Sent: Wednesday, January 09, 2002 7:28 PM > > > > > > > > > I think that all calls should push through to the > > underlying system, > > > and that if possible the set/getLevel methods should operate on the > > > underlying implementation. > > > > > > Scott > > > ... -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
