Yes, logger.log(MyCustomLEvels.LEVEL1, “message”); works right now. See the ExtendedLevels class in log4j-core test as an example on how to declare the level.
I think several of us think that finding a way to make it easy to create extended logger methods would be very nice, but I don’t believe it is a requirement. Ralph On Jan 26, 2014, at 6:46 PM, Paul Benedict <pbened...@apache.org> wrote: > I got lost in the discussion. Can someone please clarify... Is the custom > logging interface a nice-to-have or a requirement of the system? > > I was hoping simply someone could write this (pseudocode below): > logger.log(MyCustomLevels.LEVEL1, "message"); > > ...so no different interface should be required, right? Can't someone just > pass in their log level directly without using one of the named-log-level > convenience methods? > > > On Sun, Jan 26, 2014 at 8:37 PM, Matt Sicker <boa...@gmail.com> wrote: > Now Level can't be used in an annotation. Since it supports string names for > levels, should I just use Level.toLevel? > > > On 26 January 2014 19:55, Ralph Goers <ralph.go...@dslextreme.com> wrote: > I think I must be misunderstanding the part about “If those levels were > added…”. I don’t understand how a level can be added to a class from the > config such that it is usable by a programmer at compile time. > > Ralph > > On Jan 26, 2014, at 5:24 PM, Scott Deboy <scott.de...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Couldn't we no-op instead of throw if the same identical level were >> registered? >> >> If those levels were then added to the same custom level class from the >> config, could we use that single class in the logger calls? >> On Jan 26, 2014 5:15 PM, "Ralph Goers" <ralph.go...@dslextreme.com> wrote: >> I am certain I could create a LevelPlugin that would allow you to define one >> or more Levels in the configuration, but to use that Level the user would >> have to code: >> >> logger.log(Level.toLevel(“DIAG”), “hello world”); >> >> In order to directly reference the level it has to be declared as a static >> from somewhere and it can only be instantiated a single time, so creating it >> from the configuration will prevent that. >> >> Ralph >> >> On Jan 26, 2014, at 4:03 PM, Scott Deboy <scott.de...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> I have one goal: to remove my request for new built in levels by allowing >>> the levels to be defined strictly via configuration. I agree there may be >>> some hurdles but that's my goal. >>> >>> I'd like to avoid the requirement that users provide their own level >>> implementation or use a different API. >>> >>> Scott >>> >> > > > > > -- > Matt Sicker <boa...@gmail.com> > > > > -- > Cheers, > Paul
