logging-log4j-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Eduardo Ito <eduardo_...@yahoo.com>
Subject Re: Plans for supporting a build in level of "trace"
Date Wed, 24 Sep 2003 12:59:51 GMT

I agree, adding a TRACE level would make debugging easier.
As FATAL and ERROR are both about errors, DEBUG should have a more
detailed level.


 --- Robert Hedin <robert@ndsapps.com> escreveu: > I've just got to
chime in here-- I've used Log4J for quite some time
> now and
> the one thing that has bothered me about it is its wonderful
> granularity
> during normal operations-- FATAL, ERROR, WARN, INFO; each provide for
> information of a particular nature, that nature is fairly obvious,
> and
> lesser important messages can be suppressed if you just don't care
> about it.
> 
> Unfortunately, only one exists when trying to troubleshoot problems-
> DEBUG.
> There have been many times that I've longed for one more level (e.g.
> TRACE
> or similar) that would allow for finer grained logging. The lack of
> this has
> caused me, on more than one occasion, to start using INFO for
> debugging
> information just because the quantity of information output during
> DEBUG
> would have a tendency to hide the jewels I'm looking. In one case,
> the
> difference would be between checking out a 250k log file vs 100M log
> file.
> There are times that the extra verbosity is needed, but not always.
> 
> If it's not obvious, I'm very much for a TRACE level.
> 
> rob hedin
> nds systems, lc
> 
> 
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Jensen, Jeff" <Jeff.Jensen@state.mn.us>
> To: "Log4J Users List" <log4j-user@jakarta.apache.org>
> Sent: Monday, September 22, 2003 7:22 PM
> Subject: RE: Plans for supporting a build in level of "trace"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Shapira, Yoav [mailto:Yoav.Shapira@mpi.com]
> > Sent: Monday, September 22, 2003 10:59 AM
> > To: Log4J Users List
> > Subject: RE: Plans for supporting a build in level of "trace"
> >
> >
> >
> > Howdy,
> >
> > >To separate concerns.  Because trace info is a specific level,
> more
> > minutia
> > >than debug info.
> >
> > That's your use-case, not mine.  Both are debug for me.  I never
> want
> > one without the other.  theValue=... is useless if I don't know
> what
> > method it's in.
> 
> Yes, both are debug info for me too.  I want to turn off trace info
> when not
> needed to increase the clarity and value of the logs.
> 
> Your statement:
>   "theValue=... is useless if I don't know what method it's in"
> is irrelevant to the trace level argument.  The issue exists for any
> logged
> message at any level.  (The only solutions I know are to either
> define it in
> the ConversionPattern, prefix each message logged, or use NDC [which
> seems a
> little wrong to me] - how do you solve it?).
> 
> 
> So you (and others) are happy to overload the debug level.  Others,
> including me, are not!  That is too much info on one level.  "That's
> your
> use case, not mine"!  :-)
> 
> 
> > >3)  People want it, it does not break backwards compatibility, and
> it
> > adds
> > >one more level of logging clarity.
> >
> > Convince me that a majority wants it.  How come it doesn't
> > come up more
> > often on the log4j user list?
> 
> Perhaps others are silent on it like me, who has used Log4J for a
> couple of
> years and has always missed it.
> 
> In my current project, DEBUG messages containing trace info are
> sometimes
> deleted/commented out after awhile, when things are working well in
> that
> product section, possibly re-enabled when needed.
> 
> This process goes against the crux of Log4j, even its "marketing":
> disable
> the level when not desired, don't delete/comment out code.
> 
> 
> OK FOLKS!  Please email the list if you want it.  Yoav said "Convince
> me
> that a majority wants it"!
> 
> 
> > As Paul said, this is an eternal debate, kind of like whether
> > to include
> > version numbers of a release in the jar file name.
> 
> I half agree.  I agree because usage of the logging levels is subject
> to
> interpretation.  What each level means to one does not necessarily
> mean the
> same to another.  However, I do see some consistency applied at my
> various
> clients.
> 
> I disagree because tracing is a finer grained and different message
> type
> than debug.  Hence my interpretation!  Hence its difference name and
> different concept than a general debug message.  I and others see it
> as a
> missing level to Log4j.
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: log4j-user-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: log4j-user-help@jakarta.apache.org
> 
> 
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: log4j-user-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: log4j-user-help@jakarta.apache.org
>  

=====
<Eduardo Issao Ito/>
<Summa Technologies/>

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


Mime
View raw message