log4perl-devel

Re: [log4perl-devel] Re: logdie / logcroak

[<Msc...@ao...>]

In a message dated 9/3/02 11:23:26 AM Pacific Daylight Time, ke...@go... 
writes:


> It's all in CVS, see the new unit test 025CustLevels.t .  Any comments?
> 
Oops, haven't responded yet, I like the quick-and-dirty approach, gets the 
job done. Let's see if Erik comes up with something else, if so, we can 
integrate that.

-- Mike

Mike Schilli
msc...@ao...
AOL Screen Name Service

Re: [log4perl-devel] Re: logdie / logcroak

[<Msc...@ao...>]

In a message dated 9/6/02 7:34:38 PM W. Europe Daylight Time, ke...@go... 
writes:


> I'm perfectly happy to be outvoted, shall we have a chorus of AYE's or 
> NAY's for
> 
> inc_level/dec_level   more_logging/less_logging  pumpup/silence other?
> 

I'm fine either way, I'll let you guys haggle it out :)

-- Mike

Mike Schilli
log...@pe...
http://perlmeister.com

Re: [log4perl-devel] Re: logdie / logcroak

[Erik S. <er...@se...>]

Here ya go.

>>I also noticed that there's no turning off FATAL logging.
>>    
>>
>
>That's probably not intended, I think "OFF" should be higher prio than FATAL and therefore suppress it. Kevin, what do you think?
>

An interesting question is, assuming that OFF does turn even FATAL off, 
is what the behavior of logdie / logcroak / logconfess should be.

Should they still die, just not log anything? Or should logging OFF 
suppress the death as well?

My own $0.02 would be that the default behaviour would be that they 
still die, as the behavior is really log->fatal && die.

Thoughts?

-e

>  
>
>  
>