news <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on 12/21/2004 08:04:09 AM:+1, I agree with you and Ceki. TRACE is debatable (I personally like it), more than TRACE is silly.
Well... call them what you will, I want em'!! lol
Does this mean you want all 42 logging levels I described in my previous post, including the TINY, SUPERTINY, VERYTINY, EXTREMLYTINY, TINIEST, and SPLITTINGHAIRS logging levels I mentioned in a previous post?
Just kidding! That was a joke, please don't flame me because of it :)
And yes, I'm leaning towards EXPLICITLY naming methods to encourage best practices. To use the distinction made by Curt, I'm pushing the trace level methods towards diagnostic logger function, and stepping away from other uses entirely. I'm going to refrain from doing a full brain dump on all the fun thoughts now running through my head... [separating trace level methods and messaging/admin level methods into seperate interfaces.. ok I lied].
OK, I'm being serious again. I think there are two problems with "best practices": (1) they change and (2) they are in the eye of the beholder. Nothing can be deemed "best" without making a value judgement, which means that reasonable people can disagreee as to what is the "best" practice.
Bringing this back to the situation at hand, you think enter/exit are best practices, I think they're as useful as the SUPERTINY log level. But let's not take my word for it. Consider that Log4J doesn't include enter/exit and it is the pioneer logging framework that's still going strong despite an attempt to hijack its charter by including logging in the Java language itself. This leads me to believe your argument that enter/exit is a best practice is debatable at best :)
3 levels stand out clearly to me:
component level tracing [flow] - particularly useful in a larger system
class level tracing [flow]
additional detail
I still don't understand this distinction, but I am comfortable taking your word for it that this is very important. It would probably be a great feature for Log4J instead of JCL :)
richard's proposal to add symantic methods (rather than severities) is
therefore interesting. exit and entry tracing is common. at the
moment,
this works rather poorly when JCP is used with log4j: most people log these at trace which is mapped to debug by the bridge. unfortunately, this has the effect of making debug level almost unusable. separate, symantically meaningful methods would have the advantage that the
bridge
will know enough to make better choices.
-0. This is moving JCL out of the realm of bridging logging APIs and into the realm of providing logging implementations. For Log4J, enter/exit methods will end up being mapped to Log4J's DEBUG level. This means that JCL will have to provide the implementation that converts the enter/exit calls into DEBUG calls with a specific format.
This is what the thin wrapper DOES. Not sure I understand your issue.
What format should be used? Are we going to force one on users of Log4J
We should adopt a helper method to do such formatting, and use it [common] across all components to standardize this as much as possible. Where logger impls support such, we pass as much as makes sense straight through.
Let's not get hung up on formatting issues, the POINT is to capture information, enable the developers, etc.
or make it configurable? And if it's configurable, that stinks of JCL becoming a logging *implementation* rather than *bridge*. Yuck! If I was a committer (you're probably glad I'm not!) I would probably -1 the enter/exit methods.
No problem, I'd just keep beating at your arguments until my last dying breath. ;-)
Hehe that worked on me last time :) I think it won't this time though!
(so, i'm a little unsure about this issue at the moment.)
- robert
Matt
******************************************* Richard A. Sitze IBM WebSphere WebServices Development
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
