any logger in core?

[Malcolm Matalka]

I agree with David.  The current logger I am using at work as 5 or 6 log
levels and I have found little value in it.  I think 'fatal' is
especially devilish since, in such a situation, your monitoring tools
should be the ones determining that.

/M

David House <dhouse at janestreet.com> writes:

> Hmm, I am surprised you want so many!
>
> I claim there is a cost in allowing tons and tons of different log
> levels. Firstly, it complicates the interface. Secondly, it leads to
> different applications choosing different logging levels for
> essentially the same errors. E.g. how do you choose whether some
> particular failure is an error, or a fatal? Isn't it likely that
> someone else will make a different choice? There are lines that you
> can draw, but it's a big grey area. Having fewer choices means that
> everyone's programs are more consistent with respect to each other.
>
> Putting it another way: three logging levels should be enough for anyone! :)
>
> On Tue, Nov 13, 2012 at 8:02 AM, Francois Berenger
> <francois.berenger.working at gmail.com> wrote:
>> The choice in log levels is a little scarce.
>>
>> Currently:
>> raw (I don't know it's level, I guess it's always printed but I may be
>> wrong)
>> then, ordered by my intuitive notion of log priority:
>> debug < info < error
>>
>> I'm used to:
>> debug < info < warn < error < fatal
>>
>> So, I miss the warning and fatal log levels.
>> But, that's just based on my experience.
>>
>> Regards,
>> F.
>>
>>
>> On Thursday, November 8, 2012 7:13:25 PM UTC+9, David House wrote:
>>>
>>> On Thu, Nov 8, 2012 at 3:48 AM, Francois
>>> <francois.b... at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> > I don't know where to find never_returns.
>>>
>>> It's there if you open Core.Std.
>>>
>>> > But the following did work (and never stop):
>>>
>>> You need to explicitly shut down async using the shutdown function in
>>> Async.Std.
>>>
>>> > I'm affraid of open directives, I try to keep my code _very_ explicit
>>> > about what it is doing and which function from which module is used
>>> > (maybe because of past overexposure to some C++ code).
>>>
>>> I think that's exactly the right approach -- I often find myself
>>> making similar comments when doing code review at work. Things are
>>> much easier to follow if opens are reduced, or made more local, and
>>> more explicit.
>>>
>>> That being said, I do allow myself the luxury of opening Core.Std and
>>> Async.Std in most of my modules that use core / async. I find this to
>>> strike a good balance between concision and explicitness.
>>>
>>> One of the reasons is that there are very few *values* brought into
>>> scope by opening Core.Std and Async.Std. This conversation has contain
>>> disproportionally many: never_returns, shutdown, etc. -- an unlucky
>>> coincidence! But nearly everything is squirreled away inside a module,
>>> which helps a lot. (In other words, our "Pervasives" is much smaller
>>> than the ocaml standard library's.)