[slf4j-dev] Trace and/or Ignore.

[Randall J. Parr]

Niclas Hedhman wrote:

>I have stayed out of the trace() discussion, mostly since "trace" indicates 
>something related to java.lang.Runtime.traceMethodCalls(). If it is just a 
>"finer" debug(), then another name, such as verbose, is more suitable.
>However, verbose() is not a verb, but an adjective/adverb and should not be 
>used as method name. OTOH, warning and error is suffering from the same 
>problem, so I guess it is a moot point. ;o)
>But is it apparent that debug() is level in between of warning() and 
>verbose()?? My natural reaction is that verbose() is part of the production 
>code, but debug() is only a development tool.
>
>  
>

To my mind it goes more like "info", "verbose", "debug", "trace" (aka 
"debuggier" :) )

That is, many apps have verbosity modes/levels which output normal 
amount of messages and then options to either "suppress" those messages 
and/or output "verbose" messages.

I think the root of the problem is that, at least for "info" and "debug" 
type messages, there is desire to express the "verbosity" (aka 
"visibility") of the message as well as the type.

I think the original error/warn, info/debug may have been intended to 
somewhat accomplish this but just does not provide quite enough 
differentiation.  Personally, I think error/warn, info/verbose, 
debug/trace (using whatever names) is a minimal differentiation.

By the way, I prefer the method name is verb style, but we already have 
"error" and "info" which are not verbs. I mean, maybe it should be what? 
err, warn, inform, elaborate, debug, trace

Of course the alternative would be to have just err, warn, inform, debug 
but allow each type of message to include an optional "verbosity" level 
(1 thru 9, or some such).

R.Parr
Temporal Arts