commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From robert burrell donkin <robertdon...@mac.com>
Subject how should log levels work? [Was Re: [Logging] default log level]
Date Wed, 09 Jan 2002 18:31:25 GMT
On Tuesday, January 8, 2002, at 10:01 PM, Craig R. McClanahan wrote:

<snip>

> Shouldn't the logging level be inherited from the underlying logging
> configuration?  If I set a particular level in my Log4J or JDK 1.4
> configuration file, *that* is what I want to use, right?

i was going to try to get round to raising some stuff related this as a 
design issue (but i didn't have time to draft a good email on it before). 
it's basically whether log levels should be delegated to the wrapped 
logging system or whether they should be enforced by the logging 
implementation. i'll try to state this more precisely:

the question is whether log levels

1. should be a way of wrapping the configuration of the underlying logging 
system or whether

2. they should act within the commons-logging implementations as a filter 
preventing calls going to the underlying system.


for example, setting a log level to Log.INFO

1. means that the implementation calls some configuration code on it's 
wrapped logging instance that allows logging

2. means that the implementation checks the current commons-logging log 
level before calling and only calls the wrapped logging system if the 
logging call is INFO or higher.


i think that 2 is the right way to go but i also think that there are good 
arguments for 1 as well. the refactoring uses interpretation 2. i think i'
ll stop here and give my reasons in another email.

- robert


--
To unsubscribe, e-mail:   <mailto:commons-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:commons-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org>


Mime
View raw message