Thanks, Craig. Nonetheless, however, I am stymied by the autodetection problem. I really don't understand how to make JBoss see my new logger, however it is written. The default Log4JLogger seems to be loaded regardless of what I do.
-----Original Message----- From: Craig R. McClanahan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, October 02, 2003 11:17 AM To: Jakarta Commons Users List Subject: Re: DEBUG vs. TRACE under Log4JLogger Steve Cohen wrote: >Actually, I can't do what you suggest. Log4JLogger is declared final. >So only the "create your own" option will work. > Yuck. Fixed in tonight's nightly build (20031003). Craig > >-----Original Message----- >From: Steve Cohen >Sent: Thursday, October 02, 2003 6:19 AM >To: Jakarta Commons Users List; Jakarta Commons Users List >Subject: RE: DEBUG vs. TRACE under Log4JLogger > > > >OK, I stand corrected. I was the victim of my own misunderstanding. I >will do what you suggest. Thanks. > >-----Original Message----- >From: Craig R. McClanahan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >Sent: Thu 10/2/2003 12:21 AM >To: Jakarta Commons Users List >Cc: >Subject: Re: DEBUG vs. TRACE under Log4JLogger >Steve Cohen wrote: > > > >>Well, I understand what you're saying, but now I've had the nasty >>surprise of upgrading to 1.0.3 under the assumption that TRACE would be >> >> > > > >>a no-op under log4j only to find that it's been redefined out from >>under me. You haven't commented on my question as to whether that's >>the way it used to work but I have a pretty strong remembrance that >>that's what it did. I remember a pretty nasty RTFM from the Log4j >>people when I asked them why trace() did nothing. >> >>Unfortunately I can't find the old docs. >> >> >> >> >A browse through the CVS history of Log4JLogger (and its predecessor, >Log4JCategoryLog) will show that the Log4J wrapper has *always* mapped >TRACE level output to Log4J's DEBUG level output, from the very >beginning. > >http://cvs.apache.org/viewcvs/jakarta-commons/logging/src/java/org/apac >h >e/commons/logging/impl/ > > > >>I still don't see what the problem would be in giving the user the >>NON-DEFAULT option of treating trace as a no-op. However, I guess I >>can do what you suggest without too much difficulty. >> >> >> >We do give you this option -- implement a subclass of Log4JLogger (or >create your own -- it's pretty simple) and use that instead. > >Craig > > > >--------------------------------------------------------------------- >To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > >--------------------------------------------------------------------- >To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > >--------------------------------------------------------------------- >To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
