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
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].
I think we can pretty much lay to rest the argument that including ENTER/EXIT is a "best practice". There have been so many arguments on both sides of the issue that it's pretty clear we're not going to reach a concensus. A best practice is something like database connection pooling, which everyone agrees is a good idea. ENTER/EXIT is a highly contentious issue, given that this debate has been raging for weeks.
I still don't understand why if you want enter/exit methods you can't just do it in your own static method somewhere like shown below.
MyLoggingUtils.enter(MyClass.class, "myMethodName", new Object[] { arg1, arg2, arg3 }).
Does JDK 1.4 logging do something really fancy with ENTER/EXIT methods that makes you argue so strongly for them? Or is there something in that IBM alphaworks project that depends on the enter/exit methods? Couldn't it be rewritten to filter TRACE level logging that began with the text "Entering" or "Exiting"?
Matt
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
