Mailing-List: contact commons-user-help@jakarta.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: "Jakarta Commons Users List" <commons-user@jakarta.apache.org>
Message-ID: <3F7B465B.1010805@apache.org>
Date: Wed, 01 Oct 2003 14:25:47 -0700
From: "Craig R. McClanahan" <craigmcc@apache.org>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.4) Gecko/20030624
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Jakarta Commons Users List <commons-user@jakarta.apache.org>
Subject: Re: DEBUG vs. TRACE under Log4JLogger
References: <D466FBEAA19E7E408BE3FAAC6EEB5676023FF8BA@utah.ignitemedia.com>
In-Reply-To: <D466FBEAA19E7E408BE3FAAC6EEB5676023FF8BA@utah.ignitemedia.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Steve Cohen wrote:

>In commons-logging-1.0.3, it seems that the package has been configured
>so that if a commons-logging Log4JLogger is in use, TRACE is treated
>exactly as if the code said DEBUG.  This is true for isTraceEnabled() as
>well.
>
>I may be remembering wrong, but I think I remember that in past versions
>it didn't work that way.  In a Log4JLogger isTraceEnabled simply
>returned FALSE and TRACE logging statements did nothing.
>  
>
Log4J itself doesn't itself support the notion of trace-level 
debugging.  Therefore, we chose to map Log.trace() to the nearest 
reasonable thing.

>I actually have a use case where I would like commons-logging to
>function that way. That use case is in JUnit testing where the JUnit
>test runs under SimpleLogger, but when the application is deployed, it
>uses log4j and I would like all the trace messages to be silent in that
>case.  
>
>However, this is not the way 1.0.3 works.  Contrary to my
>expressed-in-code wishes to have two separate levels, it promotes my
>TRACE statements to be DEBUG statements.
>  
>
Doing what you suggest would be a really nasty surprise to people who 
developed their apps with trace level debugging (because JDK 1.4 or 
SimpleLog both support it) an then try to run that app with Log4J.  All 
their trace level logs would disappear.  Therefore, I'm -1 on doing what 
you propose in the standard release.

>Is there some way to defeat this in commons-logging 1.0.3?  I don't seem
>to find one in the docs.  I would like to have this "feature" be
>configurable off.
>  
>

Nothing stops you from creating your own modified implementation of 
Log4JLogger that behaves the way you want, and set the right config 
property (org.apache.commons.logging.Log) so that your implementation 
gets picked up instead of the standard one.

Craig


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