I also have wanted a TRACE level supported in Log4j for quite awhile. I hope it is
added soon...
-Original Message-
From: Dennis Cook [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, September 20, 2003 8:24 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Plans for supporting a build in level of "trace"
I
Howdy,
Why?
Yoav Shapira
Millennium ChemInformatics
>-Original Message-
>From: Jensen, Jeff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Sent: Monday, September 22, 2003 10:45 AM
>To: Log4J Users List
>Subject: RE: Plans for supporting a build in level of "trace"
>
>I
Howdy,
Why?
Yoav Shapira
Millennium ChemInformatics
>-Original Message-
>From: Jensen, Jeff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Sent: Monday, September 22, 2003 10:45 AM
>To: Log4J Users List
>Subject:
Howdy,
>"TRACE" or "FINE" is one that many seem to agree is sensible and
required.
That's the part I'm not convinced of. How do you support the above?
>I think the idea is, no matter how many or few default levels there
are,
>the defaults should cover the range of the "logging space" completel
supporting a build in level of "trace"
Howdy,
Why?
Yoav Shapira
Millennium ChemInformatics
>-Original Message-
>From: Jensen, Jeff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Sent: Monday, September 22, 2003 10:45 AM
>To: Log4J Users List
>Subject: RE: Plans for supporting a
cumented in a lot of places.
-Original Message-
From: Shapira, Yoav [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, September 22, 2003 11:42 AM
To: Log4J Users List
Subject: RE: Plans for supporting a build in level of "trace"
Howdy,
>"TRACE" or "FINE" is
Howdy,
>To separate concerns. Because trace info is a specific level, more
minutia
>than debug info.
That's your use-case, not mine. Both are debug for me. I never want
one without the other. theValue=... is useless if I don't know what
method it's in.
>Having TRACE in Log4j means:
>1) No
Users List'
Subject: RE: Plans for supporting a build in level of "trace"
This topic is a source of endless debate where I work.
We have groups that actually separate "event logging" from "tracing",
and support about 5 levels of each. So, instead of just 1 tra
Howdy,
>I agree that this debate will carry on forever, because we all work
>differently. I believe having one trace level is good compromise. The
>way I work is to put debug statements into the code to decipher what is
>happening in the program flow, but I would love to have a trace level
to
>
It does not really matter what TRACE level gets used for. Each development
team / organization will have their interpretation of it depending on how
they intend to use the information logged at both levels.
More importantly - having a level more verbose than DEBUG is very handy. We
are planni
Howdy,
>It does not really matter what TRACE level gets used for. Each
development
>team / organization will have their interpretation of it depending on
how
>they intend to use the information logged at both levels.
I agree, it doesn't matter what it's used for, only if it's used at all.
>More
Hypothetically speaking, let's say there was a log4j sandbox jar with a
Level class replacement that includes a TRACE level, would that be useful
for people?
---> Should do.. as long as the sandbox stays compatible with future
versions of log4J.
Shuchi
c/java/org/apache/log4j/Ut
ilLoggingLevel.java?rev=1.1&content-type=text/vnd.viewcvs-markup.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, September 22, 2003 10:37 AM
To: Log4J Users List
Subject: RE: Plans for supporting a build in l
> -Original Message-
> From: Shapira, Yoav [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Monday, September 22, 2003 10:59 AM
> To: Log4J Users List
> Subject: RE: Plans for supporting a build in level of "trace"
>
>
>
> Howdy,
>
> >To separate con
> -Original Message-
> From: Shapira, Yoav [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Monday, September 22, 2003 11:03 AM
> To: Log4J Users List
> Subject: RE: Plans for supporting a build in level of "trace"
>
>
>
> Howdy,
>
> >I agree that thi
ck thereof.
> -Original Message-
> From: Shapira, Yoav [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Monday, September 22, 2003 11:53 AM
> To: Log4J Users List
> Subject: RE: Plans for supporting a build in level of "trace"
>
>
> Hypothetically speaking, let&#
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, September 22, 2003 7:22 PM
Subject: RE: Plans for supporting a build in level of "trace"
> -Original Message-
> From: Shapira, Yoav [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Monday, September 22, 2003 10:59 AM
> To: Log4J Users Li
It seems obvious enough why there is wide disagreement on how to use
the existing levels and/or whether more levels are needed. People are
trying to cram selectively enabled logging into log4j's strict
hierarchical logging scheme.
What I think mos people want is some reasonable way of saying how
Bill,
I believe there is a plan in place to do this with some kind of
"logging context" in a future release. I'm not part of the dev list, so I
don't know that for a fact, but it is my understanding from various
responses to some problems that I had early on with these issues.
IMHO, the simplicity of Debug/info/warn/error/fatal is one of Log4j's
strengths. I personally would not want Trace However, if I required
Trace-style logging, I would simply log to a dotted logger name
"---.trace".
E.g If I have a component "com.mycompany.mycomponent", I have a
complimentary "c
f" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "Log4J Users List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Monday, September 22, 2003 7:22 PM
> Subject: RE: Plans for supporting a build in level of "trace"
>
>
>
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Sh
Although catering for user requests is one of the guiding principles
behind this project, I feel that introducing the TRACE level would be
a mistake. Log4j domains which will be soon introduced into log4j
provide a much more powerful mechanism for categorizing logging
statements.
Please bear with m
Paul,
Actually, based on our conversation back in August, it works out
better if you put the "trace" at the front of the class name, that way you
still can specify package names and get everything underneath it, and you
can also turn on tracing without a package or class name. For exam
On Thu, 2003-09-25 at 01:03, Larry Young wrote:
> Paul,
>
> Actually, based on our conversation back in August, it works out
> better if you put the "trace" at the front of the class name, that way you
> still can specify package names and get everything underneath it, and you
> can al
: Re: Plans for supporting a build in level of "trace"
On Thu, 2003-09-25 at 01:03, Larry Young wrote:
> Paul,
>
> Actually, based on our conversation back in August, it works out
> better if you put the "trace" at the front of the class name, that way
ly a "priority/level" but a
"functional area" as well.
> -Original Message-
> From: Lutz Michael [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Wednesday, September 24, 2003 4:50 PM
> To: 'Log4J Users List'
> Subject: RE: Plans for supporting a build in leve
There is no documentation on log4j domains yet. However, a short spec will
be written before coding. Domains will have an impact on the inner
architecture of log4j, so prior documentation should help with the coding.
At 05:50 PM 9/24/2003 -0400, Lutz Michael wrote:
Is there a location where "l
;Functional area". Exactly.
> -Original Message-
> From: Lutz Michael [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Wednesday, September 24, 2003 4:50 PM
> To: 'Log4J Users List'
> Subject: RE: Plans for supporting a build in level of "trace"
>
>
>
>
28 matches
Mail list logo
