On Thu, Jun 30, 2011 at 12:09 AM, Mike Frysinger <[email protected]> wrote: > On Thursday, June 30, 2011 00:04:36 Jie Zhang wrote: >> On Wed, Jun 29, 2011 at 11:41 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote: >> > i wonder why we have this at all. we already have urj_log_level_t >> > declaring whether something is an error, a warning, or something else. >> > why are we manually adding "Error:" and "Warning:" prefixes to the >> > logged strings ? why cant urj_log() prefix things appropriately based >> > on the level ? >> >> Imagine set the level to "all", but you still want to see an error >> with "Error" prefix instead of "all" prefix. > > urj_log(lvl, ...) is the level at which the specified string should be logged. > if you're logging an error, then you should be doing > urj_log(URJ_LOG_LEVEL_ERROR, ...) > > when the level is set by the user, that is simply what what messages dont get > displayed. it doesnt affect the levels at which messages get called. > If it's true that user should always call urj_error_describe on URJ_LOG_LEVEL_ERROR or URJ_LOG_LEVEL_WARNING, why adding an assert is a bad idea?
Jie ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ All of the data generated in your IT infrastructure is seriously valuable. Why? It contains a definitive record of application performance, security threats, fraudulent activity, and more. Splunk takes this data and makes sense of it. IT sense. And common sense. http://p.sf.net/sfu/splunk-d2d-c2 _______________________________________________ UrJTAG-development mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/urjtag-development
