[Logging] default log level

[robert burrell donkin <ro...@mac.com>]

we should have a standard default log level. i'm not bothered whether it's 
INFO, ERROR or OFF - but i do think that all our Log implementations 
should use the same default.

anyone have a preference?

- robert


--
To unsubscribe, e-mail:   <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>

how should log levels work? [Was Re: [Logging] default log level]

[robert burrell donkin <ro...@mac.com>]

On Tuesday, January 8, 2002, at 10:01 PM, Craig R. McClanahan wrote:

<snip>

> Shouldn't the logging level be inherited from the underlying logging
> configuration?  If I set a particular level in my Log4J or JDK 1.4
> configuration file, *that* is what I want to use, right?

i was going to try to get round to raising some stuff related this as a 
design issue (but i didn't have time to draft a good email on it before). 
it's basically whether log levels should be delegated to the wrapped 
logging system or whether they should be enforced by the logging 
implementation. i'll try to state this more precisely:

the question is whether log levels

1. should be a way of wrapping the configuration of the underlying logging 
system or whether

2. they should act within the commons-logging implementations as a filter 
preventing calls going to the underlying system.


for example, setting a log level to Log.INFO

1. means that the implementation calls some configuration code on it's 
wrapped logging instance that allows logging

2. means that the implementation checks the current commons-logging log 
level before calling and only calls the wrapped logging system if the 
logging call is INFO or higher.


i think that 2 is the right way to go but i also think that there are good 
arguments for 1 as well. the refactoring uses interpretation 2. i think i'
ll stop here and give my reasons in another email.

- robert


--
To unsubscribe, e-mail:   <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>

Re: [Logging] default log level

["Craig R. McClanahan" <cr...@apache.org>]

On Tue, 8 Jan 2002, robert burrell donkin wrote:

> Date: Tue, 8 Jan 2002 21:35:32 +0000
> From: robert burrell donkin <ro...@mac.com>
> Reply-To: Jakarta Commons Developers List <co...@jakarta.apache.org>
> To: Jakarta Commons Developers List <co...@jakarta.apache.org>
> Subject: [Logging] default log level
>
> we should have a standard default log level. i'm not bothered whether it's
> INFO, ERROR or OFF - but i do think that all our Log implementations
> should use the same default.
>
> anyone have a preference?
>

Shouldn't the logging level be inherited from the underlying logging
configuration?  If I set a particular level in my Log4J or JDK 1.4
configuration file, *that* is what I want to use, right?

> - robert
>

Craig


--
To unsubscribe, e-mail:   <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>

RE: [Logging] default log level

[Paulo Gaspar <pa...@krankikom.de>]

IMO:
  INFO or WARN

Usually that should not generate much info but still logs the
important stuff.

Have fun,
Paulo Gaspar


> -----Original Message-----
> From: robert burrell donkin [mailto:robertdonkin@mac.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2002 10:36 PM
> To: Jakarta Commons Developers List
> Subject: [Logging] default log level
> 
> 
> we should have a standard default log level. i'm not bothered 
> whether it's 
> INFO, ERROR or OFF - but i do think that all our Log implementations 
> should use the same default.
> 
> anyone have a preference?
> 
> - robert
> 
> 
> --
> To unsubscribe, e-mail:   
> <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
> For additional commands, e-mail: 
> <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
> 

--
To unsubscribe, e-mail:   <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>