oops, reverse debug and trace.  The corrected level mapping is

SEVERE  <-> ERROR
WARNING <-> WARN
INFO    <-> INFO
CONFIG  <-> INFO   (distingushed by a marker, UIMA_MARKER_CONFIG)
*FINE    <-> DEBUG  
*FINER   <-> TRACE  
*FINEST  <-> TRACE  (distingushed by a marker, UIMA_MARKER_FINEST) 

-Marshall

On 3/1/2017 10:11 AM, Marshall Schor wrote:
> After thinking about this overnight, it occurred to me that uv3 could simply
> conform to what's been out there already in uimaFIT, while adding some marker
> support.
>
> This would preserve backwards compatibility with users of uimaFIT.
>
> Therefore, I plan to change the uv3 level mapping to:
>
> SEVERE  <-> ERROR
> WARNING <-> WARN
> INFO    <-> INFO
> CONFIG  <-> INFO   (distingushed by a marker, UIMA_MARKER_CONFIG)
> *FINE    <-> TRACE  
> *FINER   <-> DEBUG  
> *FINEST  <-> DEBUG  (distingushed by a marker, UIMA_MARKER_DEBUG) 
>
> This will match what uimaFIT does, while still allowing support for CONFIG 
> and FINEST via markers.
>
> -Marshall 
>
>
> On 2/28/2017 6:02 PM, Marshall Schor wrote:
>> The uv3 Logger now implements a big set of specialized loggers, all of the 
>> slf4j
>> interface, plus a few from log4j that support Java 8 lambda arguments 
>> (Supplier).
>>
>> The uimaFIT ExtendedLogger implemented a few of these "named" logging 
>> variants.
>>
>> The conventions used are slightly different.
>>
>> UV3:  the SEVERE/WARNING/INFO/CONFIG/FINE/FINER/FINEST were mapped:
>>
>> SEVERE  <-> ERROR
>> WARNING <-> WARN
>> INFO    <-> INFO
>> CONFIG  <-> INFO   (distingushed by a marker, UIMA_MARKER_CONFIG)
>> FINE    <-> TRACE  (distingushed by a marker, UIMA_MARKER_FINE) 
>> FINER   <-> TRACE  (distingushed by a marker, UIMA_MARKER_FINER) 
>> FINEST  <-> DEBUG
>>
>> while the uimaFIT chose:
>>
>> SEVERE  <-> ERROR
>> WARNING <-> WARN
>> INFO    <-> INFO
>> CONFIG  <-> not available
>> FINE    <-> TRACE
>> FINER   <-> DEBUG
>> FINEST  <-> not available
>>
>> Although we could keep the uimaFIT ExtendedLogger as is, this could have 
>> strange
>> behavior for users, in that the uimaFIT methods would have one mapping, and 
>> the
>> slf4j style ones would have another.  For example:
>>
>> logger.debug(Object param)  // a uimaFIT call
>> logger.debug(String msg)         // a slf4j style call
>> logger.debug(String msg, Object parm)  // another slf4j style call
>>
>> See https://www.slf4j.org/apidocs/org/slf4j/Logger.html for all of the 
>> calls...
>>
>> The slf4j calls would correspond to FINEST, while the uimaFIT ones would
>> correspond to FINER.
>>
>> I'm wondering what's the best way to align these?
>>
>> -Marshall
>>
>>
>

Reply via email to