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

[Kevin G. <ke...@go...>]

Jeez, don't you guys sleep?

After thinking about this for a day, I have to say I'm convinced 
inc_level and dec_level best describe what's going on. 
more/less_logging or pumpup/silence both presuppose that changing a 
logger's level towards DEBUG results in *more* messages.  That's not 
necessarily the case, with appender thresholds it might just result in 
*different* message behavior, maybe even less messages?  What the 
functions are doing is changing the level, what logging behavior that 
change results in is up to the config file.

What inc_level and dec_level do is change the level of the logger. 
Since the log4j docs say quite prominently:

"Basic Selection Rule: A log request of level p in a logger with (either 
assigned or inherited, whichever is appropriate) level q, is enabled if 
p >= q.
This rule is at the heart of log4j. It assumes that levels are ordered. 
For the standard levels, we have DEBUG < INFO < WARN < ERROR < FATAL. "

I understand your motivation in saying "the less I like exposing the 
user to the concept that there's some integer value that corresponds to 
a Level" but that's not the same as saying we shouldn't expose the user 
to the concept that levels are ordered and are comparisonable, which is 
a basic fact of life in log4j.

If we really wanted to do it cleanly, we'd have a Priority.pm object 
with is_greater and is_less_than methods, like log4j does and we'd throw 
those around instead of the integers, but that would be stupid 
performance-wise and I think we don't want to go there yet, right?

BTW, there's also a getSyslogEquivalent() in Priority.java, so that's 
fair game to implement.

And re you guys' confusion between these proposed functions going in 
Level.pm vs. Logger.pm, note that my implementation has 
Logger::inc_level() calling Level::get_higher_level() to get the right 
value.


Erik W. Selberg wrote:
> Why would these be part of the Level class? I'd imagine they'd be part 
> of the Logger class and affect the Logger's current Level.
> 
> -e
> 
> 
> msc...@ao... wrote:
> 
>> In a message dated Tue, 3 Sep 2002 9:50:57 PM Eastern Standard Time, 
>> er...@se... writes:
>>
>>  
>>
>>> So the more I think about it, the less I like exposing the user to 
>>> the concept that there's some integer value that corresponds to a Level
>>>   
>>
>>
>> Good point. Only problem is that more_logging/less_logging methods are 
>> kinda strange in a "Level" class. How about pumpup() and silence() :) ?
>>
>> -- Mike
>>
>> Mike Schilli
>> log...@pe...
>> http://perlmeister.com
>>
>>
>> -------------------------------------------------------
>> This sf.net email is sponsored by: OSDN - Tired of that same old
>> cell phone?  Get a new here for FREE!
>> https://www.inphonic.com/r.asp?r=sourceforge1&refcode1=vs3390
>> _______________________________________________
>> log4perl-devel mailing list
>> log...@li...
>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/log4perl-devel
>>
>>  
>>
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -------------------------------------------------------
> This sf.net email is sponsored by: OSDN - Tired of that same old
> cell phone?  Get a new here for FREE!
> https://www.inphonic.com/r.asp?r=sourceforge1&refcode1=vs3390
> _______________________________________________
> log4perl-devel mailing list
> log...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/log4perl-devel


-- 
Happy Trails . . .

Kevin M. Goess
(and Anne and Frank)
904 Carmel Ave.
Albany, CA  94706
(510) 525-5217