You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to fop-dev@xmlgraphics.apache.org by Vincent Hennebert <vi...@anyware-tech.com> on 2008/03/20 11:17:34 UTC
Re: svn commit: r638774 - in /xmlgraphics/fop/branches/Temp_ProcessingFeedback/src/java/org/apache/fop/events:
LoggingEventListener.java model/EventSeverity.java
Hi Jeremias,
> Author: jeremias
> Date: Wed Mar 19 03:17:36 2008
> New Revision: 638774
>
> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=638774&view=rev
> Log:
> Added DEBUG level.
Why a debug level?? I thought the idea was to keep the current logging
framework for debugging purpose?
Vincent
--
Vincent Hennebert Anyware Technologies
http://people.apache.org/~vhennebert http://www.anyware-tech.com
Apache FOP Committer FOP Development/Consulting
Re: svn commit: r638774 - in /xmlgraphics/fop/branches/Temp_ProcessingFeedback/src/java/org/apache/fop/events: LoggingEventListener.java model/EventSeverity.java
Posted by Jeremias Maerki <de...@jeremias-maerki.ch>.
On 20.03.2008 12:23:43 Vincent Hennebert wrote:
> Jeremias Maerki wrote:
> > Overconstrained geometry adjustment notifications were on debug level. I
> > guess they could also be promoted to INFO level if that's preferred.
> > It's an event I would want to get notified about but the severity level
> > is discussable.
>
> I see. Well calling it debug looks a bit unfortunate to me. That blurs
> the limit between the regular logging framework and the feedback
> mechanism IMO. If the two are co-existing, which one to use then?
>
> I agree with you that this overconstrained geometry message is of enough
> interest to be processed by the feedback mechanism. I’ll let you judge,
> but I see the two following ways of handling that:
> - either this piece of information is important enough to be promoted to
> the INFO level. Then no need to add another level.
> - or this message is still less important than the other INFO messages.
> Then adding another level of importance makes sense but it should
> really not be called debug, as it’s too misleading. What about minor?
> Or fine, to mimic the java logging framework.
I think it's better to promote it to INFO. DEBUG really doesn't make
much sense. MINOR would indeed be better if this is necessary.
> Will the feedback mechanism allow to disable events based on their ids?
Of course. Just register your own listener and only forward what you
like to any feedback/logging mechanism you want. The logging listener is
only added if no other listener has been registered until the start of
the processing run (as a fallback to keep the status quo as well as
possible, see FOTreeBuilder.startDocument()).
> Then if users are annoyed by some messages, they could simply customize
> the framework to filter out events they are not interested in. While
> this possibility doesn’t really shortcut the questioning above, it might
> go along with keeping a reduced number of levels.
>
> As a side thought: what could make sense in the future is to group
> events by families: overflow events, missing resources events,
> font-related events, etc. That would allow to easily disable a family of
> events you’re not interested in.
I thought about that. This could easily be done by extending the event
model by a category key. There is already an implicit grouping by event
producer which will suffice for most cases, I think. If there is demand
for an additional category this is easy to add. I didn't want to add too
much at the beginning for something which 95% of the people don't need
anyway.
> WDYT?
> Thanks,
> Vincent
>
>
> --
> Vincent Hennebert Anyware Technologies
> http://people.apache.org/~vhennebert http://www.anyware-tech.com
> Apache FOP Committer FOP Development/Consulting
Jeremias Maerki
Re: svn commit: r638774 - in /xmlgraphics/fop/branches/Temp_ProcessingFeedback/src/java/org/apache/fop/events:
LoggingEventListener.java model/EventSeverity.java
Posted by Vincent Hennebert <vi...@anyware-tech.com>.
Jeremias Maerki wrote:
> Overconstrained geometry adjustment notifications were on debug level. I
> guess they could also be promoted to INFO level if that's preferred.
> It's an event I would want to get notified about but the severity level
> is discussable.
I see. Well calling it debug looks a bit unfortunate to me. That blurs
the limit between the regular logging framework and the feedback
mechanism IMO. If the two are co-existing, which one to use then?
I agree with you that this overconstrained geometry message is of enough
interest to be processed by the feedback mechanism. I’ll let you judge,
but I see the two following ways of handling that:
- either this piece of information is important enough to be promoted to
the INFO level. Then no need to add another level.
- or this message is still less important than the other INFO messages.
Then adding another level of importance makes sense but it should
really not be called debug, as it’s too misleading. What about minor?
Or fine, to mimic the java logging framework.
Will the feedback mechanism allow to disable events based on their ids?
Then if users are annoyed by some messages, they could simply customize
the framework to filter out events they are not interested in. While
this possibility doesn’t really shortcut the questioning above, it might
go along with keeping a reduced number of levels.
As a side thought: what could make sense in the future is to group
events by families: overflow events, missing resources events,
font-related events, etc. That would allow to easily disable a family of
events you’re not interested in.
WDYT?
Thanks,
Vincent
--
Vincent Hennebert Anyware Technologies
http://people.apache.org/~vhennebert http://www.anyware-tech.com
Apache FOP Committer FOP Development/Consulting
Re: svn commit: r638774 - in /xmlgraphics/fop/branches/Temp_ProcessingFeedback/src/java/org/apache/fop/events: LoggingEventListener.java model/EventSeverity.java
Posted by Jeremias Maerki <de...@jeremias-maerki.ch>.
Overconstrained geometry adjustment notifications were on debug level. I
guess they could also be promoted to INFO level if that's preferred.
It's an event I would want to get notified about but the severity level
is discussable.
See:
http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=638777&view=rev
On 20.03.2008 11:17:34 Vincent Hennebert wrote:
> Hi Jeremias,
>
> > Author: jeremias
> > Date: Wed Mar 19 03:17:36 2008
> > New Revision: 638774
> >
> > URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=638774&view=rev
> > Log:
> > Added DEBUG level.
>
> Why a debug level?? I thought the idea was to keep the current logging
> framework for debugging purpose?
>
> Vincent
>
>
> --
> Vincent Hennebert Anyware Technologies
> http://people.apache.org/~vhennebert http://www.anyware-tech.com
> Apache FOP Committer FOP Development/Consulting
Jeremias Maerki