[slf4j-dev] SLF4J Implementation for Simple Log

[Ceki Gülcü]

Hello Graham,

I can understand why you'd be reticent to add support for Markers in 
Simple-Log.

Note that the SLF4J API does not demand that Simple_log actually do 
anything useful with markers. Simple-Log can delegate calls to methods with 
a Marker object to the appropriate method without the Marker. This is what 
NOP, Simple, JDK14 and NLOG4J implementations do. To support SLF4J beta5, 
Simple-Log needs to include Marker related classes, Marker, MarkerFactory, 
IMarkerFactory, BasicMarker and BasicMarkerFactory, all of which are 
included in SLF4J beta5. Of course, Simple-log would need to conform to the 
org.slf4j.Logger interface.

For users who do not need more complex schemes, Simple-Log can be 
sufficient. However, for those wanting to do more complex things, Marker 
offers significant new power.

Cheers,

At 03:25 PM 8/11/2005, Graham Lea wrote:

>Having read the thread, I don't think Marker is a good idea for what 
>you're trying to achieve.
>SLF4J is "intended to serve as a simple façade for various logging APIs".
>I don't know of any logging APIs that support the two-dimensional logging 
>being proposed (though I suspect some I have come across would be able to 
>handle it).
>I know my logging package doesn't, and, because of its philosophy, it 
>probably never will.
>Does JDK Logging have features that would support this? (i.e. filtering by 
>Marker - that's what you're aiming for, right?)
>My feeling is that you would reduce the usefulness of the interface by 
>adding more complex schemes like this that not many logging packages will 
>be able to support in a meaningful way.
>
>An extra level would be good.
>'Verbose' is a good name.
>'Trace' is definitely loaded. It makes me thing entry/exit, like Heiner wrote.
>
>Regards,
>
>Graham.
>_______________________________________________

-- 
Ceki Gülcü

   The complete log4j manual: http://www.qos.ch/log4j/