How about Level.forName()?
On 26 January 2014 21:06, Ralph Goers <ralph.go...@dslextreme.com> wrote:
> No objections on spawning a separate thread for discussion 2.
>
> I also am not in love with the method name but it does describe what it
> does. If anyone has any ideas on a better name please suggest it (we are
> talking about the getOrCreateLevel method name).
>
> Ralph
>
> On Jan 26, 2014, at 6:59 PM, Nick Williams <nicho...@nicholaswilliams.net>
> wrote:
>
> There are two separate discussions going on here, so it's easy to get
> lost. We should probably split discussions again.
>
> Discussion 1: The finer details of custom levels. I'm fine with using a
> static factory method and making the constructor private, but I'm not a big
> fan of the name. Just sounds awkward. Unfortunately, I can't come up with
> anything better.
>
> Discussion 2: A wrapper / extended interface for logging using these
> custom levels. Yes, Paul, users can just do this:
>
> logger.log(MyCustomLevels.LEVEL1, "message");
>
> That is already supported by making Level extensible. However, some on the
> team have expressed a desire to make it even easier. Given hypothetical
> custom levels DIAG and NOTE, the following would be a "nice-to-have" as you
> call it:
>
> logger.note("message");
> logger.diag("message");
> etc.
>
> We're discussing options to make this possible. However, it is not a
> requirement to enable custom levels. Custom levels are now already possible.
>
> Any objections to breaking discussion 2 off into another thread?
>
> Nick
>
> On Jan 26, 2014, at 8:46 PM, Paul Benedict 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
>
>
>
>
--
Matt Sicker <boa...@gmail.com>
