I am fine with DIAG. I had always thought INFO was the abbreviation for
INFORMATIONAL, which is way too long.
Ralph
> On Jan 22, 2014, at 6:21 AM, Gary Gregory <garydgreg...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 1:33 AM, Ralph Goers <ralph.go...@dslextreme.com>
>> wrote:
>> First, I assume you meant to code “implements LogLevelStrength” instead of
>> “extends LogLevelStrength” since an enum already implicitly extends Enum and
>> a Class (or Enum) can’t extend an Interface.
>>
>> Second, doing this would mean that the Log4j 2 core would have to be
>> modified to never use the Level enum and only use the Interface, except
>> perhaps in ThresholdFilter which can really only be configured with one of
>> the Level enum values. Not being able to use Level as a method parameter and
>> field in the LogEvent makes its value as an enum minimal. Only being able to
>> use Level values in the ThresholdFilter means anyone with a custom Level has
>> to write their own custom Level Filter.
>>
>> I think providing the extra levels is a fair compromise.
>
> I am in agreement with Ralph.
>
> I created LOG4J-508 (new levels) and LOG4J-507 (space level ints by 100) to
> track this for the release notes. SVN has the new levels in now.
>
> Before the new Logger methods roll in I thought we could finalize our choice
> of the DIAG level name. The names NOTICE and VERBOSE feel pretty good to me
> and are 'standard' in the sense that other systems and command lines make use
> of the terms (as mentioned elsewhere in the thread).
>
> Right now, we have DIAG in SVN which could also be DIAGNOSTIC. DIAGNOSTIC
> would be our longest name; we do have precedent for abbreviation: we have
> WARN instead of WARNING. There is also DIAGNOSIS. Using DIAG would get devs
> choose the variant in conversation. We could of course not abbreviate
> anything and rename WARN to WARNING or INFO to INFORM for example, making all
> the levels either verbs or nouns, but not a mix.
>
> Gary
>
>>
>> Ralph
>>
>>
>>> On Jan 21, 2014, at 8:50 AM, Paul Benedict <pbened...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>
>>> Or if you really want to get fancy (!!!), don't make the log4j API accept
>>> an Level, but an interface that each logging level Enum object implements.
>>> Then programmers can use enums. Example:
>>>
>>>
>>> public interface LogLevelStrength {
>>> int getStrength();
>>> }
>>>
>>> public enum Level extends LogLevelStrength {
>>> FATAL() {
>>> public int getStrength() { return 600; }
>>> }
>>> ...
>>> }
>>>
>>> public enum MyCustomLevel extends LogLevelStrength {
>>> DIAGNOSTIC() {
>>> public int getStrength() { return 250; }
>>> }
>>> ...
>>> }
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> On Tue, Jan 21, 2014 at 10:45 AM, Paul Benedict <pbened...@apache.org>
>>>> wrote:
>>>> It won't be possible with an enum, yes, but we should have a way to allow
>>>> extensions. For example, if we publically document the integer level of
>>>> the enums (separated by 100), then we can provide an overload that accepts
>>>> an integer. That's how you can allow people to slide in their extensions.
>>>> Philospohy: enums for the standard, ints for the custom programmer.
>>>>
>>>> Paul
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> On Tue, Jan 21, 2014 at 10:42 AM, Gary Gregory <garydgreg...@gmail.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> On Tue, Jan 21, 2014 at 11:33 AM, Paul Benedict <pbened...@apache.org>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>> On Tue, Jan 21, 2014 at 10:25 AM, Ralph Goers
>>>>>>> <ralph.go...@dslextreme.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I tend to agree that there is ambiguity between TRACE and VERBOSE, but
>>>>>>> I have no problem adding it if it means end users will have more
>>>>>>> flexibility with little cost.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I think this is meaningless flexibility. It smells of adding a feature
>>>>>> without a good reason. Imagine the conversations people will have to
>>>>>> explain the difference between TRACE and VERBOSE. I can't think of any
>>>>>> good universal justification for its use that demands an addition to
>>>>>> log4j.
>>>>>
>>>>> If you do not like it, do not use it ;)
>>>>>
>>>>>> This is best reserved for a personal extension.
>>>>>
>>>>> Which is not possible since Level is an enum, hence this discussion
>>>>> before the API freezes.
>>>>>
>>>>> Gary
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> E-Mail: garydgreg...@gmail.com | ggreg...@apache.org
>>>>> Java Persistence with Hibernate, Second Edition
>>>>> JUnit in Action, Second Edition
>>>>> Spring Batch in Action
>>>>> Blog: http://garygregory.wordpress.com
>>>>> Home: http://garygregory.com/
>>>>> Tweet! http://twitter.com/GaryGregory
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Cheers,
>>>> Paul
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Cheers,
>>> Paul
>
>
>
> --
> E-Mail: garydgreg...@gmail.com | ggreg...@apache.org
> Java Persistence with Hibernate, Second Edition
> JUnit in Action, Second Edition
> Spring Batch in Action
> Blog: http://garygregory.wordpress.com
> Home: http://garygregory.com/
> Tweet! http://twitter.com/GaryGregory
