commons-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Steve Cohen" <>
Subject RE: DEBUG vs. TRACE under Log4JLogger
Date Thu, 02 Oct 2003 11:19:07 GMT

OK, I stand corrected.  I was the victim of my own misunderstanding.  I will do what you suggest.

-----Original Message-----
From:	Craig R. McClanahan []
Sent:	Thu 10/2/2003 12:21 AM
To:	Jakarta Commons Users List
Subject:	Re: DEBUG vs. TRACE under Log4JLogger
Steve Cohen wrote:

>Well, I understand what you're saying, but now I've had the nasty
>surprise of upgrading to 1.0.3 under the assumption that TRACE would be
>a no-op under log4j only to find that it's been redefined out from under
>me.  You haven't commented on my question as to whether that's the way
>it used to work but I have a pretty strong remembrance that that's what
>it did.  I remember a pretty nasty RTFM from the Log4j people when I
>asked them why trace() did nothing.  
>Unfortunately I can't find the old docs.
A browse through the CVS history of Log4JLogger (and its predecessor, 
Log4JCategoryLog) will show that the Log4J wrapper has *always* mapped 
TRACE level output to Log4J's DEBUG level output, from the very beginning.

>I still don't see what the problem would be in giving the user the
>NON-DEFAULT option of treating trace as a no-op.  However, I guess I can
>do what you suggest without too much difficulty.
We do give you this option -- implement a subclass of Log4JLogger (or 
create your own -- it's pretty simple) and use that instead.


To unsubscribe, e-mail:
For additional commands, e-mail:

To unsubscribe, e-mail:
For additional commands, e-mail:

View raw message