From mb at bese.it  Tue Mar  2 09:48:15 2004
From: mb at bese.it (Marco Baringer)
Date: Tue, 2 Mar 2004 10:48:15 +0100
Subject: [log4cl-devel] logging levels
Message-ID: <BA35633F-6C2E-11D8-9B20-000393599076@bese.it>


i was looking at the implementation of logging levels, i think it would 
be a better idea to assign each level a number this would be much 
faster than the current list based implementation, when we add or 
remove levels we can just update the numbers associated with each 
level. what do you think?

--
Marco
Ring the bells that still can ring.
Forget the perfect offering.
There is a crack in everything.
That's how the light gets in.
	-Leonard Cohen




From lam at tuxfamily.org  Tue Mar  2 17:21:45 2004
From: lam at tuxfamily.org (Lam)
Date: Tue, 02 Mar 2004 18:21:45 +0100
Subject: [log4cl-devel] news
Message-ID: <tceksbtb9y.fsf@lam.dev33.cvf>


i begin to create a web site for log4cl

http://www.common-lisp.net/project/log4cl/


-- 
Nicolas Lamirault




From lam at tuxfamily.org  Tue Mar  9 18:03:53 2004
From: lam at tuxfamily.org (Lam)
Date: Tue, 09 Mar 2004 19:03:53 +0100
Subject: [log4cl-devel] logging levels
In-Reply-To: <BA35633F-6C2E-11D8-9B20-000393599076@bese.it> (Marco
	Baringer's message of "Tue, 2 Mar 2004 10:48:15 +0100")
References: <BA35633F-6C2E-11D8-9B20-000393599076@bese.it>
Message-ID: <tc8yi9x5h2.fsf@lam.dev33.cvf>

Marco Baringer <mb at bese.it> writes:

> i was looking at the implementation of logging levels, i think it
> would be a better idea to assign each level a number this would be
> much faster than the current list based implementation, when we add or
> remove levels we can just update the numbers associated with each
> level. what do you think?

Currently levels are defined like this :

(defparameter *levels* '(:debug :info :warning :error :fatal))

would you like to create a such structure like this :

(defparameter *levels* 
              '((:debug . 1)
                (:info . 2)
                (:warning . 3) 
                (:error . 4)
                (:fatal . 5)))

?

-- 
Nicolas Lamirault




From nablaone at o2.pl  Thu Mar 11 13:59:26 2004
From: nablaone at o2.pl (=?iso-8859-2?Q?Rafa=B3_Strzali=F1ski?=)
Date: Thu, 11 Mar 2004 14:59:26 +0100
Subject: =?iso-8859-2?Q?Re:_[log4cl-devel]_logging_levels?=
In-Reply-To: <tc8yi9x5h2.fsf@lam.dev33.cvf>
References: <BA35633F-6C2E-11D8-9B20-000393599076@bese.it> 
	<tc8yi9x5h2.fsf@lam.dev33.cvf>
Message-ID: <20040311135926.26CC6630B8@rekin7.go2.pl>


---- Wiadomo?? Oryginalna ----
Od: Lam <lam at tuxfamily.org>
Do: log4cl-devel at common-lisp.net
Data: Tue, 09 Mar 2004 19:03:53 +0100
Temat: Re: [log4cl-devel] logging levels

>Marco Baringer <mb at bese.it> writes:
>
>> i was looking at the implementation of logging levels, i think it
>> would be a better idea to assign each level a number this would be
>> much faster than the current list based implementation, when we
add or
>> remove levels we can just update the numbers associated with each
>> level. what do you think?
>
>Currently levels are defined like this :
>
>(defparameter *levels* '(:debug :info :warning :error :fatal))
>
>would you like to create a such structure like this :
>
>(defparameter *levels* 
>              '((:debug . 1)
>                (:info . 2)
>                (:warning . 3) 
>                (:error . 4)
>                (:fatal . 5)))
>

I prefer using symbol properties to things like that.

Example code (not tested):

(defun update-level-symbols-properties ()
  (let ((level 0))
    (dolist (i *levels*)
      (setf (get i 'log4cl-level) (incf level)))))

(defun level> (a b)
  (> (get a 'log4cl-level) (get b 'log4cl-level))





--
Pozdrawiam, Rafal Strzalinski (nabla)
http://nabla.prv.pl