Hi Steve,
thanks that looks very nice; sub- hierarchies also look great.
My only oncern is with the mentioned need to change Logger range IDs;
can we handle this in such a way to avoid recycling of previous IDs?
Maybe the simplest solution is to use the ORM6 release as an
opportunity to change t
Following the recent post about boot logging and recent work on a new
"module" (criteria queries) in 6, I wanted to circle back to this with a
few thoughts. Now that this approach has been in place for quite a while
and has been getting used we have a better feel for how this works in
practice.
O
On Fri, 28 Sep 2018 at 16:43, Steve Ebersole wrote:
>
> Thanks for the feedback!
I'm actually sorry for the delay :) Just back from 2 weeks off, catching up.
> WRT effort, the plan is to make these changes as I do work in a particular
> area which is what I have been doing - not a "one shot, go
Thanks for the feedback!
WRT effort, the plan is to make these changes as I do work in a particular
area which is what I have been doing - not a "one shot, go back and change
all logging".
WRT granularity, sure that would be a concern. It really comes back to
having a good "logical" design of th
Hi Steve,
I love the cathegories idea; I think we discussed it before. My only
concern is that it's a lot of work to implement, but if you feel it's
doable that's great.
In terms of "changes needed" I'm not worried either. Like you said, 6
would have had different names for most cases; at least
Yes. As I mentioned in my original, this would mean potential changes for
people configuring logging. I've started doing this for new logging in 6
and it works great.
Mainly asking opinions about changing existing logging and whether the
benefits are worth the effort.
And keep in mind that the
I think it's a good idea.
However, will this break all current applications that use the package name
log appenders?
Vlad
On Fri, Sep 14, 2018 at 7:20 PM, Steve Ebersole wrote:
> Yes, I know no one likes talking about logging. "Its not important", until
> it is ;)
>
> TLDR I am considering mo
On 8 Jan 2014, at 19:19, Steve Ebersole wrote:
> So a few follow ups question here.
>
> First, wrt @MessageLogger/@LogMessage versus @MessageBundle do we want to
> split these?
For what it’s worth, we do the split in Validator. I think I prefer it this
way, but have no strong
feeling about
So a few follow ups question here.
First, wrt @MessageLogger/@LogMessage versus @MessageBundle do we want to
split these? The cliff notes version is that @MessageBundle (and
@Message) is used to define parameterized messages for translation;
@MessageLogger/@LogMessage further says that resulting
For those that did not see the Scanning/Jandex Pull Request I sent earlier,
it includes some initial proofing along these lines.
Essentially I started creating a set of distinct, functional-based
MessageLoggers which log to dedicated categories per functional area.
Samples are by far the best way
10 matches
Mail list logo
