On Thu, 2005-07-07 at 21:32 +0200, Ceki Gülcü wrote: > At 07:54 AM 7/7/2005, Christian Stein wrote: > >Hello Ceki, Niklas and all others! > > > >I'm totally with Niklas - especially in two issues. First the strong typing > >of > >the 'message' and 'format' argument as String. And second, his proposal of > >the > >generic 'log(LEVEL, message...)' methods. Nice to see the first issue > >implemented in the current version of SLF4J, already. Is the 'log(...)' > >feature > > a no-go, Ceki? > > The log(Level, ...) method requires that Level class be defined in > SLF4J. But introducing Level as a class would be an important change > to the scope of the SLF4J project. > > SLF4J could define Level as an *interface* which raises the question > of construction of Level instances. Admittedly, Marker suffers from > the exact same problem. > > Does this answer your question?
would level give anything new that marker does not? - robert _______________________________________________ dev mailing list [email protected] http://slf4j.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
