commons-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Steve Cohen" <SCo...@sportvision.com>
Subject RE: DEBUG vs. TRACE under Log4JLogger
Date Thu, 02 Oct 2003 16:53:06 GMT
Actually, in looking at the code, it seems as though subclassing might
not be enough, anyway.  There's also the issue of the FQCN variable
which, if merely subclassing, would contain an incorrect value.  I don't
know how this might affect the functioning of the system, but it does
make me think that rolling my own might be safer, pending your
explanation of how this is used.

-----Original Message-----
From: Craig R. McClanahan [mailto:craigmcc@apache.org] 
Sent: Thursday, October 02, 2003 11:17 AM
To: Jakarta Commons Users List
Subject: Re: DEBUG vs. TRACE under Log4JLogger


Steve Cohen wrote:

>Actually, I can't do what you suggest.  Log4JLogger is declared final. 
>So only the "create your own" option will work.
>
Yuck.  Fixed in tonight's nightly build (20031003).

Craig

>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Steve Cohen
>Sent: Thursday, October 02, 2003 6:19 AM
>To: Jakarta Commons Users List; Jakarta Commons Users List
>Subject: RE: DEBUG vs. TRACE under Log4JLogger
>
>
>
>OK, I stand corrected.  I was the victim of my own misunderstanding.  I

>will do what you suggest.  Thanks.
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From:	Craig R. McClanahan [mailto:craigmcc@apache.org]
>Sent:	Thu 10/2/2003 12:21 AM
>To:	Jakarta Commons Users List
>Cc:	
>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.
>
>http://cvs.apache.org/viewcvs/jakarta-commons/logging/src/java/org/apac
>h
>e/commons/logging/impl/
>
>  
>
>>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.
>
>Craig
>
>
>
>---------------------------------------------------------------------
>To unsubscribe, e-mail: commons-user-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
>For additional commands, e-mail: commons-user-help@jakarta.apache.org
>
>
>
>
>
>---------------------------------------------------------------------
>To unsubscribe, e-mail: commons-user-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
>For additional commands, e-mail: commons-user-help@jakarta.apache.org
>
>
>---------------------------------------------------------------------
>To unsubscribe, e-mail: commons-user-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
>For additional commands, e-mail: commons-user-help@jakarta.apache.org
>  
>



---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: commons-user-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: commons-user-help@jakarta.apache.org


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: commons-user-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: commons-user-help@jakarta.apache.org


Mime
View raw message