http://bugzilla.slf4j.org/show_bug.cgi?id=31 --- Comment #78 from Joern Huxhorn <joern@huxhorn.de> 2010-02-14 12:38:55 --- (In reply to comment #77)
I think that your approach with having the varargs logger in a completely separate package is the right solution.
Thanks.
I also think that the methods in the interface should be as simple as possible while still conveying meaning. In other words the mandatory formating string must be explicitly defined, but the exception cannot as it breaks the varargs convention (to my understanding).
I'd vote for a new Logger interface in a separate package (shipped separately from slf4j-api too) providing only
log.error(String, Object...) log.warn(String, Object...) log.info(String, Object...) log.debug(String, Object...)
My proposal defines some more methods. logger.log(Level, String, Object...) logger.log(Level, Marker, String, Object...) logger.log(Level, Message) logger.log(Level, Marker, Message) logger.log(Level, Message, Throwable) logger.log(Level, Marker, Message, Throwable) The same explicitly for each level, with the Level argument omitted, obviously. That way it's possible to create and use arbitrary other Message implementations, beside the default implementation that is used when (String, Object...) is called. The default formats exactly like the current SLF4J message format.
which then invokes the appropriate methods in the current slf4j API (unless Logback implements these too natively). Simply looking at the last element to see if it is a Throwable or not, should be enough?
I think so, yes. It adheres to the POLA ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_least_astonishment )
My only concern is that it breaks the "log-where-I-came-from" mechanisms. This is less important to me.
This shouldn't be a problem due to the LocationAwareLogger. -- Configure bugmail: http://bugzilla.slf4j.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the assignee for the bug.