logging-log4j-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Dennis Cook <den...@cook-mail.net>
Subject Re: Rationale for TRACE-level/priority.
Date Sat, 01 Nov 2003 16:53:49 GMT

On Friday, October 31, 2003, at 11:10 AM, Ceki Gülcü wrote:

> At 08:29 AM 10/31/2003 -0800, Dennis Cook wrote:
>>> 2) make a personal issue out of this topic
>> Since all use of any level is subjective, a refusal to add a TRACE 
>> level, that seems to be a highly request feature, can only be seen as 
>> a "personal" issue already.  It has already been established that 
>> domains will not replace levels, so for those that may not have the 
>> option of moving to the use of domains, a  TRACE level is still an 
>> unmet need.
> How was it established that domains will not replace levels?

Maybe that was just an assumption, on my part, but I did ask in a 
previous message if domains were going to replace levels, Also the 
release number, of 1.3 lead me to believe that this was a evolutionary 
not revolutionary change.  If I am mistaken, then I would have to agree 
with Toby Butzon, that the next version is should be a 2.0 version 
since its use with existing code would be precluded.

>> Lets be realistic about this issue.  A vote is not needed here, 
>> adding a trace level would not change any existing functionality.  
>> Those that do not want it do not have to use it.  I can only see two 
>> valid reasons for not including TRACE as a natively supported level.
>> 1) No resources available to implement, test or maintain the change.
>> 2) Change is incompatible with or contrary to current functionality
> There is also:
> 3) Change works contrary to future functionality.

If an additional level is contrary to future functionality, then the 
existing levels would also be contrary, which brings me back to the 
feeling that this next version is a 2.0 release.  If this is the case, 
what will be the future for version .12.n?

>> I would think that any other reason for rejection would leaning 
>> toward the "personal".    Since the addition of a TRACE level could 
>> hardly be seen as being incompatible,  would a contribution of the 
>> patch to add the native support for the TRACE level be accepted from 
>> an "non-comitter"?
> The implementation question is hardly an issue here.
> Some users are asking for the TRACE level. My response was: please
> wait for the domain functionality to crystallize and then, if you
> remain unconvinced, let us have this discussion again.

Now I am confused, if you would be willing to entertain discussion at a 
later time, then how would a new level be contrary to the next release

> I think it is very unfair to qualify our reaction on this matter as
> condescending or trivializing [the requested change].  If my memory
> serves me correctly, this is the first flame war on this mailing list,
> ever. I am actually not sure what to make of it.

First, I would hardly consider what I have been reading, for the past 
month, as "flame war".  I may be presumptuous here, but I think it was 
my query when I first joined the list that might have started this 
latest round, but there have been several threads.  It was stated that 
a valid case had not yet been made for a new level.  I feel that most 
of what I have seen here has been a very civil attempt to make that 
case.   There seems to be some difference of opinion on where the new 
"development level" fits (above or below DEBUG), but I think the case 
for another development level has been clearly made.

I never said your (or anyones) reaction was condescending, I meant no 
personal disrespect to anyone.  I think the term is used was 
"trivialize" which means "to assign little significance or value".  I 
kept seeing how "domains" were going to solve the problem, but I don't 
think they will be feasible for many of us.

I for one have a lot of code to maintain based upon the levels 
concepts.  A wholesale conversion to use domains would not be possible. 
  Your comment here about a new level being contrary to future 
functionality (domains?) actually scares me a little.  So I personally 
would like a little more clarification.  Will the levels concept be 
supported in the next release?

> -- 
> Ceki Gülcü
>      For log4j documentation consider "The complete log4j manual"
>      ISBN: 2970036908 http://www.qos.ch/shop/products/clm_t.jsp
>      import org.apache.Facetime;
>      ApacheCon US 2003, 18-21 November http://apachecon.com/
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: log4j-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: log4j-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org

To unsubscribe, e-mail: log4j-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: log4j-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org

View raw message