Hello Graham,
I can understand why you'd be reticent to add support for Markers in
Simple-Log.
Note that the SLF4J API does not demand that Simple_log actually do
anything useful with markers. Simple-Log can delegate calls to methods with
a Marker object to the appropriate method without the Marker. This is what
NOP, Simple, JDK14 and NLOG4J implementations do. To support SLF4J beta5,
Simple-Log needs to include Marker related classes, Marker, MarkerFactory,
IMarkerFactory, BasicMarker and BasicMarkerFactory, all of which are
included in SLF4J beta5. Of course, Simple-log would need to conform to the
org.slf4j.Logger interface.
For users who do not need more complex schemes, Simple-Log can be
sufficient. However, for those wanting to do more complex things, Marker
offers significant new power.
Cheers,
At 03:25 PM 8/11/2005, Graham Lea wrote:
Having read the thread, I don't think Marker is a good idea for what
you're trying to achieve.
SLF4J is "intended to serve as a simple façade for various logging APIs".
I don't know of any logging APIs that support the two-dimensional logging
being proposed (though I suspect some I have come across would be able to
handle it).
I know my logging package doesn't, and, because of its philosophy, it
probably never will.
Does JDK Logging have features that would support this? (i.e. filtering by
Marker - that's what you're aiming for, right?)
My feeling is that you would reduce the usefulness of the interface by
adding more complex schemes like this that not many logging packages will
be able to support in a meaningful way.
An extra level would be good.
'Verbose' is a good name.
'Trace' is definitely loaded. It makes me thing entry/exit, like Heiner wrote.
Regards,
Graham.
_______________________________________________
--
Ceki Gülcü
The complete log4j manual: http://www.qos.ch/log4j/
_______________________________________________
dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://slf4j.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
