[logging] consensus about Log interface?

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

i think it's important to get a consensus since we might have to stick 
with this interface for some time. this is an attempt to summarize what i 
think came out of the various threads. it should make it easier for anyone 
else who thinks otherwise to make that clear.

1. no one else (but me) has any great enthusiasm for making log levels 
internal to commons-logging. so we'll lose that idea.

2. commons-logging should not perform any configuration of the underlying 
logging system. therefore setLevel() should be removed.

3, getLevel cannot be used reliable for anything more than the basic 
levels (ie. debug, info, warn, error, fatal). the behaviour of 
commons-logging (from a component's point of view) should not depend on 
any feature of the logging system which the user chooses. therefore 
getLevel should be removed and isWarnEnabled, isErrorEnabled and 
isFatalEnabled methods added instead. any implementation which cannot 
reliable determine the log level should return true for each of these 
methods.

- robert


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

RE: [logging] consensus about Log interface?

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

LOL

Paulo

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Peter Donald [mailto:peter@apache.org]
> Sent: Monday, January 14, 2002 10:59 AM
> To: Jakarta Commons Developers List
> Subject: Re: [logging] consensus about Log interface?
> 
> 
> Wow - almost identical to the Avalon Logger interface.
> 
> On Mon, 14 Jan 2002 10:09, robert burrell donkin wrote:
> > i think it's important to get a consensus since we might have to stick
> > with this interface for some time. this is an attempt to 
> summarize what i
> > think came out of the various threads. it should make it easier 
> for anyone
> > else who thinks otherwise to make that clear.
> >
> > 1. no one else (but me) has any great enthusiasm for making log levels
> > internal to commons-logging. so we'll lose that idea.
> >
> > 2. commons-logging should not perform any configuration of the 
> underlying
> > logging system. therefore setLevel() should be removed.
> >
> > 3, getLevel cannot be used reliable for anything more than the basic
> > levels (ie. debug, info, warn, error, fatal). the behaviour of
> > commons-logging (from a component's point of view) should not depend on
> > any feature of the logging system which the user chooses. therefore
> > getLevel should be removed and isWarnEnabled, isErrorEnabled and
> > isFatalEnabled methods added instead. any implementation which cannot
> > reliable determine the log level should return true for each of these
> > methods.
> >
> > - robert
> 
> -- 
> Cheers,
> 
> Pete
> 
> "You know what a dumbshit the 'average man' on the street is? Well, by
> definition, half of them are even dumber than that!"
> 					J.R. "Bob" Dobbs
> 
> --
> 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>

Re: [logging] consensus about Log interface?

[Peter Donald <pe...@apache.org>]

Wow - almost identical to the Avalon Logger interface.

On Mon, 14 Jan 2002 10:09, robert burrell donkin wrote:
> i think it's important to get a consensus since we might have to stick
> with this interface for some time. this is an attempt to summarize what i
> think came out of the various threads. it should make it easier for anyone
> else who thinks otherwise to make that clear.
>
> 1. no one else (but me) has any great enthusiasm for making log levels
> internal to commons-logging. so we'll lose that idea.
>
> 2. commons-logging should not perform any configuration of the underlying
> logging system. therefore setLevel() should be removed.
>
> 3, getLevel cannot be used reliable for anything more than the basic
> levels (ie. debug, info, warn, error, fatal). the behaviour of
> commons-logging (from a component's point of view) should not depend on
> any feature of the logging system which the user chooses. therefore
> getLevel should be removed and isWarnEnabled, isErrorEnabled and
> isFatalEnabled methods added instead. any implementation which cannot
> reliable determine the log level should return true for each of these
> methods.
>
> - robert

-- 
Cheers,

Pete

"You know what a dumbshit the 'average man' on the street is? Well, by
definition, half of them are even dumber than that!"
					J.R. "Bob" Dobbs

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

Re: [logging] consensus about Log interface?

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

On Sun, 13 Jan 2002, robert burrell donkin wrote:

> Date: Sun, 13 Jan 2002 23:09:55 +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] consensus about Log interface?
>
> i think it's important to get a consensus since we might have to stick
> with this interface for some time. this is an attempt to summarize what i
> think came out of the various threads. it should make it easier for anyone
> else who thinks otherwise to make that clear.
>
> 1. no one else (but me) has any great enthusiasm for making log levels
> internal to commons-logging. so we'll lose that idea.
>

+1

> 2. commons-logging should not perform any configuration of the underlying
> logging system. therefore setLevel() should be removed.
>

+1

> 3, getLevel cannot be used reliable for anything more than the basic
> levels (ie. debug, info, warn, error, fatal). the behaviour of
> commons-logging (from a component's point of view) should not depend on
> any feature of the logging system which the user chooses. therefore
> getLevel should be removed and isWarnEnabled, isErrorEnabled and
> isFatalEnabled methods added instead. any implementation which cannot
> reliable determine the log level should return true for each of these
> methods.
>

It's clear that different logging systems have different notions about
what "levels" are available, so removing getLevel() makes sense to me as
well.

I don't personally plan to call is{Warn,Error,Fatal}Enabled in my code,
but I can see adding them for semantic completeness.

> - robert
>

Craig


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