I second my suggestion!
On 26 January 2014 21:44, Ralph Goers <ralph.go...@dslextreme.com> wrote:
> My first gut reaction was confusion over Class.forName(). But then in
> thinking about it that name does behave a lot like what Class.forName()
> does, except with a Level. So I think I do like it better than the current
> name.
>
> Any other thoughts or opinions?
>
> Ralph
>
>
> On Jan 26, 2014, at 7:28 PM, Matt Sicker <boa...@gmail.com> 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>
>
>
>
--
Matt Sicker <boa...@gmail.com>
