Curt Arnold <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on 12/18/2004 03:19:41 PM:

> 
> On Dec 18, 2004, at 2:18 PM, Richard Sitze wrote:
> 
> >>
> >> +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);
> >
> > The proposal is for more than a the simple helper methods, it is for 
> > the
> > [potential] underlying implementation below.  Where possible, these 
> > SHOULD
> > be mapped to a finer level than 'debug', but not as fine as 'trace'.
> >
> > By naming them 'enter/exit' instead of 'finer', we encourage their use 

> > in
> > a particular fashion...  if you feel that such strong "best-practice"
> > enforcement is inappropriate, then let's not throw the dog [and I know
> > it's a dog ;)] out with the bath water.
> >
> > We'd like at least one more trace level, see below.
> >
> 
> 
> Maybe the tension is a manifestation of the problem of trying to assign 
> one common severity to entering and exiting messages.  Some entries 
> have to be more significant than others, the only mechanism to 
> distinguish them in the JSR-47 is to not instrument the less 
> significant entry points.
> 
> 
> Maybe adding a
> 
> entering(Level level, String...)
> 
> The JSR-47 adapter could map this the JSR's entering if level was the 
> equivalent of FINER or lower and fabricate a similar message if the 
> level were higher than finer.

Interesting point.  We're trying to NOT expose parameterized levels in 
JCL.

Not to say that we can't, just that I expect heated discussion within the 
community ;)

<ras>


*******************************************
Richard A. Sitze
IBM WebSphere WebServices Development


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Reply via email to