Simon Kitching wrote:I've been convinced by the arguments put forward in this thread that explicit enter/exit methods taking class+method strings should not be encouraged
Actually, I agree. I'd prefer to see that semantic state encoded in the log message, which I feel is much cleaner.
--- Noel
+1. Just because the JDK 1.4 log does this, doesn't mean that we have to enforce this behavior on all logging implementations. Why not just leave it generic? If someone wants enter/exit methods, they can define their own:
public static void enter(Log log, Class clazz, String method); public static void exit(Log log, Class clazz, String method);
Personally, I am against introducing logging that is more specific than TRACE. In practice, I think it's hard to explain even the distinction between TRACE and DEBUG (i.e. - the projects I've seen tend to use one or the other almost exclusively if they're not using INFO or higher for the message). Again, just because JDK 1.4 offers FINEST, FINER doesn't mean JCL has to. What happens when the next implementation comes along that offers 42 different logging levels, including TINY, VERYTINY, EXTREMLYTINY, TINIEST, SUPPERTINY and SPLITTINGHAIRS logging levels?
Matt
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
