http://bugzilla.slf4j.org/show_bug.cgi?id=104
Ceki Gulcu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
--- Comment #2 from Ceki Gulcu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 2008-09-26 16:08:09 ---
(In reply to comment #1)
> XLogger was modified to implement Logger but the fix does not set the FQCN to
> the XLogger class on the implemented methods. Thus the class, method and line
> number will be set to the XLogger call to the underlying logger instead of the
> caller of the XLogger.
OK, that can be easily fixed.
> Rather than fix this I suggest changing to use static methods taking a Logger
> as the first parameter as was proposed when the enhancement was submitted. See
> bug 86
Why, isn't the Xlogger implements Logger more convenient to use? Are there any
advantages to the API as proposed in bug 86?
--
Configure bugmail: http://bugzilla.slf4j.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the assignee for the bug.
_______________________________________________
dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.slf4j.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
