You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to log4net-user@logging.apache.org by Hollywood <ho...@thzero.com> on 2005/07/06 18:11:21 UTC
Configuration of Levels
Has the configuration of logging Levels been implemented yet? Or is it still
static?
Re: Configuration of Levels
Posted by Ron Grabowski <ro...@yahoo.com>.
You'd have to write your own ILog too. If you aren't going to be
extending the MyLogImpl class, you could make it sealed and make the
methods non-virtual for a speed boost.
--- Ron Grabowski <ro...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> You may have already found this the archives, but this is a post
> where
> Nicko talks about reassigning log levels:
>
> http://tinyurl.com/c6p94
>
http://www.mail-archive.com/log4net-user%40logging.apache.org/msg01678.html
>
> "
> In 1.2.9 changes were made to the LogImpl class to support rebinding
> levels in the config file at runtime. This is not the most obvious
> feature, but it is actually possible, although not advisable, to swap
> the DEBUG and ERROR levels at runtime. The ReloadLevels method was
> added
> to allow the LogImpl to keep up with any changes made to levels
> during
> configuration. The TraceLogImpl overrides the ReloadLevels method to
> add
> the TRACE level, while this is correct behaviour, it is not necessary
> if
> you don't intend to reconfigure your levels at runtime.
> "
>
> I don't know how to rebind the default levels at runtime. Becuase
> you're wanting to add additional levels too, it may be easier to
> write
> your own LogManager and use the following class as your ILog
> implementation (I may have accidently switched the order of the
> levels):
>
> // untested
> public class MyLogImpl : LoggerWrapperImpl, ILog
> {
> private readonly static Type ThisDeclaringType = typeof(LogImpl);
>
> // 100, 200, 300, etc. for more flexibility ???
> private Level all = new Level(0, "ALL");
> private Level info = new Level(1, "VERBOSE");
> private Level debug = new Level(2, "DEBUG");
> private Level trace = new Level(3, "TRACE");
> private Level warn = new Level(4, "WARN");
> private Level error = new Level(5, "ERROR");
> private Level fatal = new Level(6, "FATAL");
> private Level info = new Level(7, "INFO");
> private Level off = new Level(8, "OFF");
>
> public MyLogImpl(ILogger logger) : base(logger)
> {
> // caution: this implementation does not listen for config changes
> }
>
> virtual public void Verbose(object message)
> {
> Logger.Log(ThisDeclaringType, verbose, message, null);
> }
>
> virtual public void Debug(object message)
> {
> Logger.Log(ThisDeclaringType, debug, message, null);
> }
>
> virtual public void Trace(object message)
> {
> Logger.Log(ThisDeclaringType, trace, message, null);
> }
>
> // snip
>
> virtual public bool IsVerboseEnabled
> {
> get { return Logger.IsEnabledFor(verbose); }
> }
>
> virtual public bool IsDebugEnabled
> {
> get { return Logger.IsEnabledFor(debug); }
> }
>
> virtual public bool IsTraceEnabled
> {
> get { return Logger.IsEnabledFor(trace); }
> }
>
> // snip
>
> }
>
> --- Hollywood <ho...@thzero.com> wrote:
>
> > And before it's asked, here is the *exact* order of logging that is
> > in the
> > requirements I am working with:
> >
> > ALL
> > VERBOSE
> > DEBUG
> > TRACE
> > WARN
> > ERROR
> > FATAL
> > INFO
> > OFF
> >
> > which differsn from the standard listed in the log4net
> documentation
> > of:
> >
> > ALL
> > DEBUG
> > INFO
> > WARN
> > ERROR
> > FATAL
> > OFF
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Ron Grabowski" <ro...@yahoo.com>
> > To: "Log4NET User" <lo...@logging.apache.org>
> > Sent: Wednesday, July 06, 2005 12:11 PM
> > Subject: Re: Configuration of Levels
> >
> >
> > >I can't think of a good reason why someone would want to make WARN
> > more
> > > serious than FATAL. Wouldn't that make it difficult for future
> > > maintainers?
> > >
> > > Perhaps you could write your own Logger implementation and have
> it
> > > internally mix-up values as you see fit:
> > >
> > > DEBUG -> DEBUG
> > > WARN -> INFO
> > > ERROR -> WARN
> > > FATAL -> ERROR
> > > INFO -> FATAL
> > >
> > > --- Hollywood <ho...@thzero.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >> I'll clarify my original question:
> > >>
> > >> Has the configuration of logging Levels ORDER been implemented
> > yet
> > >> or is it
> > >> still static, i.e. being able to say that the logging level is
> > >> VERBOSE,
> > >> DEBUG, WARN, ERROR, FATAL, TRACE, INFO rather that what has been
> > >> hardcoded
> > >> into the log4* system?
> > >>
> > >> ----- Original Message -----
> > >> From: "Ron Grabowski" <ro...@yahoo.com>
> > >> To: "Log4NET User" <lo...@logging.apache.org>
> > >> Sent: Wednesday, July 06, 2005 11:18 AM
> > >> Subject: Re: Configuration of Levels
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> > There has been example code in CVS since January 2004:
> > >> >
> > >> > http://tinyurl.com/9atgc
> > >> >
> > >>
> > >
> >
>
http://cvs.apache.org/viewcvs.cgi/logging-log4net/examples/net/1.0/Extensibility/TraceLogApp/cs/src/TraceLogApp.cs?rev=1.3&view=log
> > >> >
> > >> > I think it was possible with 1.2.0 beta 8 which means its
> > existed
> > >> since
> > >> > at least 2003.
> > >> >
> > >> > --- Hollywood <ho...@thzero.com> wrote:
> > >> >
> > >> >> Has the configuration of logging Levels been implemented yet?
> > Or
> > >> is
> > >> >> it still
> > >> >> static?
> > >> >>
> > >> >>
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >>
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
Re: Configuration of Levels
Posted by Ron Grabowski <ro...@yahoo.com>.
You may have already found this the archives, but this is a post where
Nicko talks about reassigning log levels:
http://tinyurl.com/c6p94
http://www.mail-archive.com/log4net-user%40logging.apache.org/msg01678.html
"
In 1.2.9 changes were made to the LogImpl class to support rebinding
levels in the config file at runtime. This is not the most obvious
feature, but it is actually possible, although not advisable, to swap
the DEBUG and ERROR levels at runtime. The ReloadLevels method was
added
to allow the LogImpl to keep up with any changes made to levels during
configuration. The TraceLogImpl overrides the ReloadLevels method to
add
the TRACE level, while this is correct behaviour, it is not necessary
if
you don't intend to reconfigure your levels at runtime.
"
I don't know how to rebind the default levels at runtime. Becuase
you're wanting to add additional levels too, it may be easier to write
your own LogManager and use the following class as your ILog
implementation (I may have accidently switched the order of the
levels):
// untested
public class MyLogImpl : LoggerWrapperImpl, ILog
{
private readonly static Type ThisDeclaringType = typeof(LogImpl);
// 100, 200, 300, etc. for more flexibility ???
private Level all = new Level(0, "ALL");
private Level info = new Level(1, "VERBOSE");
private Level debug = new Level(2, "DEBUG");
private Level trace = new Level(3, "TRACE");
private Level warn = new Level(4, "WARN");
private Level error = new Level(5, "ERROR");
private Level fatal = new Level(6, "FATAL");
private Level info = new Level(7, "INFO");
private Level off = new Level(8, "OFF");
public MyLogImpl(ILogger logger) : base(logger)
{
// caution: this implementation does not listen for config changes
}
virtual public void Verbose(object message)
{
Logger.Log(ThisDeclaringType, verbose, message, null);
}
virtual public void Debug(object message)
{
Logger.Log(ThisDeclaringType, debug, message, null);
}
virtual public void Trace(object message)
{
Logger.Log(ThisDeclaringType, trace, message, null);
}
// snip
virtual public bool IsVerboseEnabled
{
get { return Logger.IsEnabledFor(verbose); }
}
virtual public bool IsDebugEnabled
{
get { return Logger.IsEnabledFor(debug); }
}
virtual public bool IsTraceEnabled
{
get { return Logger.IsEnabledFor(trace); }
}
// snip
}
--- Hollywood <ho...@thzero.com> wrote:
> And before it's asked, here is the *exact* order of logging that is
> in the
> requirements I am working with:
>
> ALL
> VERBOSE
> DEBUG
> TRACE
> WARN
> ERROR
> FATAL
> INFO
> OFF
>
> which differsn from the standard listed in the log4net documentation
> of:
>
> ALL
> DEBUG
> INFO
> WARN
> ERROR
> FATAL
> OFF
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Ron Grabowski" <ro...@yahoo.com>
> To: "Log4NET User" <lo...@logging.apache.org>
> Sent: Wednesday, July 06, 2005 12:11 PM
> Subject: Re: Configuration of Levels
>
>
> >I can't think of a good reason why someone would want to make WARN
> more
> > serious than FATAL. Wouldn't that make it difficult for future
> > maintainers?
> >
> > Perhaps you could write your own Logger implementation and have it
> > internally mix-up values as you see fit:
> >
> > DEBUG -> DEBUG
> > WARN -> INFO
> > ERROR -> WARN
> > FATAL -> ERROR
> > INFO -> FATAL
> >
> > --- Hollywood <ho...@thzero.com> wrote:
> >
> >> I'll clarify my original question:
> >>
> >> Has the configuration of logging Levels ORDER been implemented
> yet
> >> or is it
> >> still static, i.e. being able to say that the logging level is
> >> VERBOSE,
> >> DEBUG, WARN, ERROR, FATAL, TRACE, INFO rather that what has been
> >> hardcoded
> >> into the log4* system?
> >>
> >> ----- Original Message -----
> >> From: "Ron Grabowski" <ro...@yahoo.com>
> >> To: "Log4NET User" <lo...@logging.apache.org>
> >> Sent: Wednesday, July 06, 2005 11:18 AM
> >> Subject: Re: Configuration of Levels
> >>
> >>
> >> > There has been example code in CVS since January 2004:
> >> >
> >> > http://tinyurl.com/9atgc
> >> >
> >>
> >
>
http://cvs.apache.org/viewcvs.cgi/logging-log4net/examples/net/1.0/Extensibility/TraceLogApp/cs/src/TraceLogApp.cs?rev=1.3&view=log
> >> >
> >> > I think it was possible with 1.2.0 beta 8 which means its
> existed
> >> since
> >> > at least 2003.
> >> >
> >> > --- Hollywood <ho...@thzero.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> Has the configuration of logging Levels been implemented yet?
> Or
> >> is
> >> >> it still
> >> >> static?
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
>
>
Re: Configuration of Levels
Posted by Hollywood <ho...@thzero.com>.
And before it's asked, here is the *exact* order of logging that is in the
requirements I am working with:
ALL
VERBOSE
DEBUG
TRACE
WARN
ERROR
FATAL
INFO
OFF
which differsn from the standard listed in the log4net documentation of:
ALL
DEBUG
INFO
WARN
ERROR
FATAL
OFF
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ron Grabowski" <ro...@yahoo.com>
To: "Log4NET User" <lo...@logging.apache.org>
Sent: Wednesday, July 06, 2005 12:11 PM
Subject: Re: Configuration of Levels
>I can't think of a good reason why someone would want to make WARN more
> serious than FATAL. Wouldn't that make it difficult for future
> maintainers?
>
> Perhaps you could write your own Logger implementation and have it
> internally mix-up values as you see fit:
>
> DEBUG -> DEBUG
> WARN -> INFO
> ERROR -> WARN
> FATAL -> ERROR
> INFO -> FATAL
>
> --- Hollywood <ho...@thzero.com> wrote:
>
>> I'll clarify my original question:
>>
>> Has the configuration of logging Levels ORDER been implemented yet
>> or is it
>> still static, i.e. being able to say that the logging level is
>> VERBOSE,
>> DEBUG, WARN, ERROR, FATAL, TRACE, INFO rather that what has been
>> hardcoded
>> into the log4* system?
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Ron Grabowski" <ro...@yahoo.com>
>> To: "Log4NET User" <lo...@logging.apache.org>
>> Sent: Wednesday, July 06, 2005 11:18 AM
>> Subject: Re: Configuration of Levels
>>
>>
>> > There has been example code in CVS since January 2004:
>> >
>> > http://tinyurl.com/9atgc
>> >
>>
> http://cvs.apache.org/viewcvs.cgi/logging-log4net/examples/net/1.0/Extensibility/TraceLogApp/cs/src/TraceLogApp.cs?rev=1.3&view=log
>> >
>> > I think it was possible with 1.2.0 beta 8 which means its existed
>> since
>> > at least 2003.
>> >
>> > --- Hollywood <ho...@thzero.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> Has the configuration of logging Levels been implemented yet? Or
>> is
>> >> it still
>> >> static?
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>
>
>
Re: Configuration of Levels
Posted by Hollywood <ho...@thzero.com>.
I take it then, the configuration of the order of logging levels, has not
been implemented then?
P.S. Please no more about the ordering, they were examples, not supposed to
be discussion points.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ron Grabowski" <ro...@yahoo.com>
To: "Log4NET User" <lo...@logging.apache.org>
Sent: Wednesday, July 06, 2005 1:27 PM
Subject: Re: Configuration of Levels
> The point I was trying to make is that most people consider the word
> "fatal" to be more serious than "warn". If you have a fatal
> accident...you're dead. Your other emailing detailing the order you
> need the log levels to be makes more sense.
>
> --- Hollywood <ho...@thzero.com> wrote:
>
>> a) That was an example
>> b) Just because you can not think of a reason to do something, does
>> not mean
>> someone else does not have requirements to do just that.
>>
>> "Mixing" up the values is not a solid solution, it is just a plain
>> hack.
>> Not to mention, definetly a nightmare for future maintainers of the
>> codebase.
>>
>> This question was asked specifically because Niko, awhile back,
>> mentioned
>> that the re-ordering of the logging levels was something that was
>> being
>> looked at.
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Ron Grabowski" <ro...@yahoo.com>
>> To: "Log4NET User" <lo...@logging.apache.org>
>> Sent: Wednesday, July 06, 2005 12:11 PM
>> Subject: Re: Configuration of Levels
>>
>>
>> >I can't think of a good reason why someone would want to make WARN
>> more
>> > serious than FATAL. Wouldn't that make it difficult for future
>> > maintainers?
>> >
>> > Perhaps you could write your own Logger implementation and have it
>> > internally mix-up values as you see fit:
>> >
>> > DEBUG -> DEBUG
>> > WARN -> INFO
>> > ERROR -> WARN
>> > FATAL -> ERROR
>> > INFO -> FATAL
>> >
>> > --- Hollywood <ho...@thzero.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> I'll clarify my original question:
>> >>
>> >> Has the configuration of logging Levels ORDER been implemented
>> yet
>> >> or is it
>> >> still static, i.e. being able to say that the logging level is
>> >> VERBOSE,
>> >> DEBUG, WARN, ERROR, FATAL, TRACE, INFO rather that what has been
>> >> hardcoded
>> >> into the log4* system?
>> >>
>> >> ----- Original Message -----
>> >> From: "Ron Grabowski" <ro...@yahoo.com>
>> >> To: "Log4NET User" <lo...@logging.apache.org>
>> >> Sent: Wednesday, July 06, 2005 11:18 AM
>> >> Subject: Re: Configuration of Levels
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> > There has been example code in CVS since January 2004:
>> >> >
>> >> > http://tinyurl.com/9atgc
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >
>>
> http://cvs.apache.org/viewcvs.cgi/logging-log4net/examples/net/1.0/Extensibility/TraceLogApp/cs/src/TraceLogApp.cs?rev=1.3&view=log
>> >> >
>> >> > I think it was possible with 1.2.0 beta 8 which means its
>> existed
>> >> since
>> >> > at least 2003.
>> >> >
>> >> > --- Hollywood <ho...@thzero.com> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> Has the configuration of logging Levels been implemented yet?
>> Or
>> >> is
>> >> >> it still
>> >> >> static?
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>
>
>
Re: Configuration of Levels
Posted by Ron Grabowski <ro...@yahoo.com>.
The point I was trying to make is that most people consider the word
"fatal" to be more serious than "warn". If you have a fatal
accident...you're dead. Your other emailing detailing the order you
need the log levels to be makes more sense.
--- Hollywood <ho...@thzero.com> wrote:
> a) That was an example
> b) Just because you can not think of a reason to do something, does
> not mean
> someone else does not have requirements to do just that.
>
> "Mixing" up the values is not a solid solution, it is just a plain
> hack.
> Not to mention, definetly a nightmare for future maintainers of the
> codebase.
>
> This question was asked specifically because Niko, awhile back,
> mentioned
> that the re-ordering of the logging levels was something that was
> being
> looked at.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Ron Grabowski" <ro...@yahoo.com>
> To: "Log4NET User" <lo...@logging.apache.org>
> Sent: Wednesday, July 06, 2005 12:11 PM
> Subject: Re: Configuration of Levels
>
>
> >I can't think of a good reason why someone would want to make WARN
> more
> > serious than FATAL. Wouldn't that make it difficult for future
> > maintainers?
> >
> > Perhaps you could write your own Logger implementation and have it
> > internally mix-up values as you see fit:
> >
> > DEBUG -> DEBUG
> > WARN -> INFO
> > ERROR -> WARN
> > FATAL -> ERROR
> > INFO -> FATAL
> >
> > --- Hollywood <ho...@thzero.com> wrote:
> >
> >> I'll clarify my original question:
> >>
> >> Has the configuration of logging Levels ORDER been implemented
> yet
> >> or is it
> >> still static, i.e. being able to say that the logging level is
> >> VERBOSE,
> >> DEBUG, WARN, ERROR, FATAL, TRACE, INFO rather that what has been
> >> hardcoded
> >> into the log4* system?
> >>
> >> ----- Original Message -----
> >> From: "Ron Grabowski" <ro...@yahoo.com>
> >> To: "Log4NET User" <lo...@logging.apache.org>
> >> Sent: Wednesday, July 06, 2005 11:18 AM
> >> Subject: Re: Configuration of Levels
> >>
> >>
> >> > There has been example code in CVS since January 2004:
> >> >
> >> > http://tinyurl.com/9atgc
> >> >
> >>
> >
>
http://cvs.apache.org/viewcvs.cgi/logging-log4net/examples/net/1.0/Extensibility/TraceLogApp/cs/src/TraceLogApp.cs?rev=1.3&view=log
> >> >
> >> > I think it was possible with 1.2.0 beta 8 which means its
> existed
> >> since
> >> > at least 2003.
> >> >
> >> > --- Hollywood <ho...@thzero.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> Has the configuration of logging Levels been implemented yet?
> Or
> >> is
> >> >> it still
> >> >> static?
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
>
>
Re: Configuration of Levels
Posted by Hollywood <ho...@thzero.com>.
a) That was an example
b) Just because you can not think of a reason to do something, does not mean
someone else does not have requirements to do just that.
"Mixing" up the values is not a solid solution, it is just a plain hack.
Not to mention, definetly a nightmare for future maintainers of the
codebase.
This question was asked specifically because Niko, awhile back, mentioned
that the re-ordering of the logging levels was something that was being
looked at.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ron Grabowski" <ro...@yahoo.com>
To: "Log4NET User" <lo...@logging.apache.org>
Sent: Wednesday, July 06, 2005 12:11 PM
Subject: Re: Configuration of Levels
>I can't think of a good reason why someone would want to make WARN more
> serious than FATAL. Wouldn't that make it difficult for future
> maintainers?
>
> Perhaps you could write your own Logger implementation and have it
> internally mix-up values as you see fit:
>
> DEBUG -> DEBUG
> WARN -> INFO
> ERROR -> WARN
> FATAL -> ERROR
> INFO -> FATAL
>
> --- Hollywood <ho...@thzero.com> wrote:
>
>> I'll clarify my original question:
>>
>> Has the configuration of logging Levels ORDER been implemented yet
>> or is it
>> still static, i.e. being able to say that the logging level is
>> VERBOSE,
>> DEBUG, WARN, ERROR, FATAL, TRACE, INFO rather that what has been
>> hardcoded
>> into the log4* system?
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Ron Grabowski" <ro...@yahoo.com>
>> To: "Log4NET User" <lo...@logging.apache.org>
>> Sent: Wednesday, July 06, 2005 11:18 AM
>> Subject: Re: Configuration of Levels
>>
>>
>> > There has been example code in CVS since January 2004:
>> >
>> > http://tinyurl.com/9atgc
>> >
>>
> http://cvs.apache.org/viewcvs.cgi/logging-log4net/examples/net/1.0/Extensibility/TraceLogApp/cs/src/TraceLogApp.cs?rev=1.3&view=log
>> >
>> > I think it was possible with 1.2.0 beta 8 which means its existed
>> since
>> > at least 2003.
>> >
>> > --- Hollywood <ho...@thzero.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> Has the configuration of logging Levels been implemented yet? Or
>> is
>> >> it still
>> >> static?
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>
>
>
Re: Configuration of Levels
Posted by Ron Grabowski <ro...@yahoo.com>.
I can't think of a good reason why someone would want to make WARN more
serious than FATAL. Wouldn't that make it difficult for future
maintainers?
Perhaps you could write your own Logger implementation and have it
internally mix-up values as you see fit:
DEBUG -> DEBUG
WARN -> INFO
ERROR -> WARN
FATAL -> ERROR
INFO -> FATAL
--- Hollywood <ho...@thzero.com> wrote:
> I'll clarify my original question:
>
> Has the configuration of logging Levels ORDER been implemented yet
> or is it
> still static, i.e. being able to say that the logging level is
> VERBOSE,
> DEBUG, WARN, ERROR, FATAL, TRACE, INFO rather that what has been
> hardcoded
> into the log4* system?
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Ron Grabowski" <ro...@yahoo.com>
> To: "Log4NET User" <lo...@logging.apache.org>
> Sent: Wednesday, July 06, 2005 11:18 AM
> Subject: Re: Configuration of Levels
>
>
> > There has been example code in CVS since January 2004:
> >
> > http://tinyurl.com/9atgc
> >
>
http://cvs.apache.org/viewcvs.cgi/logging-log4net/examples/net/1.0/Extensibility/TraceLogApp/cs/src/TraceLogApp.cs?rev=1.3&view=log
> >
> > I think it was possible with 1.2.0 beta 8 which means its existed
> since
> > at least 2003.
> >
> > --- Hollywood <ho...@thzero.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Has the configuration of logging Levels been implemented yet? Or
> is
> >> it still
> >> static?
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
>
>
Re: Configuration of Levels
Posted by Hollywood <ho...@thzero.com>.
I'll clarify my original question:
Has the configuration of logging Levels ORDER been implemented yet or is it
still static, i.e. being able to say that the logging level is VERBOSE,
DEBUG, WARN, ERROR, FATAL, TRACE, INFO rather that what has been hardcoded
into the log4* system?
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ron Grabowski" <ro...@yahoo.com>
To: "Log4NET User" <lo...@logging.apache.org>
Sent: Wednesday, July 06, 2005 11:18 AM
Subject: Re: Configuration of Levels
> There has been example code in CVS since January 2004:
>
> http://tinyurl.com/9atgc
> http://cvs.apache.org/viewcvs.cgi/logging-log4net/examples/net/1.0/Extensibility/TraceLogApp/cs/src/TraceLogApp.cs?rev=1.3&view=log
>
> I think it was possible with 1.2.0 beta 8 which means its existed since
> at least 2003.
>
> --- Hollywood <ho...@thzero.com> wrote:
>
>> Has the configuration of logging Levels been implemented yet? Or is
>> it still
>> static?
>>
>>
>
>
>
Re: Configuration of Levels
Posted by Ron Grabowski <ro...@yahoo.com>.
There has been example code in CVS since January 2004:
http://tinyurl.com/9atgc
http://cvs.apache.org/viewcvs.cgi/logging-log4net/examples/net/1.0/Extensibility/TraceLogApp/cs/src/TraceLogApp.cs?rev=1.3&view=log
I think it was possible with 1.2.0 beta 8 which means its existed since
at least 2003.
--- Hollywood <ho...@thzero.com> wrote:
> Has the configuration of logging Levels been implemented yet? Or is
> it still
> static?
>
>