Level.forName wouldn't work--it's not just "for name," it's for the name /and/ the level. But it must be unique by the name.
For that matter, what are we to do in the following situation? Level.getOrCreate("DIAG", 150); ... Level.getOrCreate("DIAG", 250); They're not going to get what they expect in both cases. Nick On Jan 26, 2014, at 9:28 PM, Matt Sicker wrote: > 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>