Re: [xwt-users] Opinions on logging keywords

I modeled after Avalon LogKit, which also had fatal. Fatal has been 
removed as widgets should not be doing anything fatal, nor ever 
encountering it.

What Charlie leaves out is that these names have intrinisic meanings, 
such that debug < info < warn < error. Furthermore the logging system 
has a threshold configuration system that allows you to declare 'only 
log WARN and above'. The keyword print does not logically fit into this 
system.

Finally, I would like to depart from print as it is a relic of the 
prior, less flexible, logging system. I would like to encourage a rapid 
conversion to the new system as it should be quite beneficial for 
debugging.

Corey


On Tuesday, December 23, 2003, at 04:34 PM, Tupshin Harper wrote:

> Charles Goodwin wrote:
>
>> Corey has been implementing a new logging levels setup for Nitrogen.
>>
>> Basically, where before you had 'xwt.println()', there is now
>> 'xwt.log.[debug|info|warn|error]()' where, essentially, certain levels
>> of logging can be switched off.
>>
>> Now (be prepared, this is petty), David and I think that 'print' 
>> sounds
>> better than 'info' but Corey disagrees.  So, as potentially casual 
>> users
>> of XWT, please could you say (if you care!) whether you prefer
>> 'xwt.log.info()' or 'xwt.log.print()'.
>>
>> Uh, yeah, as you can tell we are preoccupied with the important 
>> stuff. Although, seriously, we just had a really cool H3 meeting!
>>
>> - Charlie
>>
>>
> Strong vote for info. Parallelism over individual esthetic. Also, some 
> very common logging systems use the exact list that corey has adopted. 
> Log4j, uses that list plus fatal (which may or may not be desirable 
> for xwt). Least surprise (to me) says go with info.
>
> -Tupshin
>
> _______________________________________________
> users mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://lists.xwt.org/listinfo/users
>