Great, thanks for the PR! I'll make sure to review this over the weekend.
On Thu, 28 Jan 2021 at 13:47, Tim Perry <[email protected]> wrote: > > I submitted pull request 463 for this work. > https://github.com/apache/logging-log4j2/pull/463 > > Please let me know if there are any issues you would like me to address. > > Thank you, > Tim > > > On Tue, Jan 26, 2021 at 3:27 PM Tim Perry <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Okay, I've fully updated the code to use JUnit 5. > > > > I'm thinking of naming the ServletContextListener that should be > > registered > > as a listener in web.xml "Log4jShutdownOnContextDestroyedListener". In > > my initial code it was named "Log4jServletDestroyedListenerTest" which > > isn't very useful. The general pattern in this log4j-web artifact is to > > name > > things after the servlet interface they implement. However, now we have > > two > > classes implementing ServletContextListener so this class needs a name > > that communicates its meaning better. Does the name > > "Log4jShutdownOnContextDestroyedListener" make sense? It is the class > > to register to do the log4j shutdown when the listener's > > contextDestroyed method is called. > > > > I'm open to other suggestions. If no one has a strong preference I'll check > > in the code with "Log4jShutdownOnContextDestroyedListener" as the name > > and create the pull request tomorrow morning PST. > > > > I'm working on a branch based off release-2.x here: > > > > https://github.com/perry2of5/logging-log4j2/tree/release-2.x-configurableShutdown > > > > Thanks, > > Tim > > > > > > On Tue, Jan 26, 2021 at 12:07 PM Matt Sicker <[email protected]> wrote: > > > >> The release-2.x branch is the current stable branch, while master is > >> the 3.x branch right now. I'd suggest release-2.x since we're still > >> likely to make at least one (if not more) more 2.x release before 3.0, > >> though if you make a PR to both branches, that helps :) > >> > >> On Tue, 26 Jan 2021 at 13:47, Tim Perry <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > > >> > Yes, junit pulls in an old version of hamcrest. There are some nice > >> > goodies in the newer hamcrest, but I just stuck with the existing > >> > dependencies. I did upgrade everything to JUnit 5. > >> > > >> > What is the best branch to base my pull request on? I'm going to > >> > re-apply the changes to get a clean history: one commit for the > >> > testing upgrades and a second commit for substantive changes. > >> > > >> > Thanks, > >> > Tim > >> > > >> > On Mon, Jan 25, 2021 at 1:15 PM Matt Sicker <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > > >> > > I believe that's already included. There's also AssertJ which might be > >> > > a dependency. No strong preferences from me, though; just try to use > >> > > the JUnit 5 API preferably as not everything has been migrated yet! :) > >> > > > >> > > On Mon, 25 Jan 2021 at 15:06, Tim Perry <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > > > > >> > > > Is it okay to import hamcrest to use in the tests? > >> > > > > >> > > > <dependency> > >> > > > <groupId>org.hamcrest</groupId> > >> > > > <artifactId>hamcrest</artifactId> > >> > > > <version>2.2</version> > >> > > > <scope>test</scope> > >> > > > </dependency> > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > On Mon, Jan 25, 2021 at 10:44 AM Tim Perry <[email protected]> > >> wrote: > >> > > > > >> > > > > Thank you, Matt. > >> > > > > > >> > > > > I'll get back to you after I've written some unit tests. > >> > > > > > >> > > > > Tim > >> > > > > > >> > > > > On Mon, Jan 25, 2021 at 10:37 AM Matt Sicker <[email protected]> > >> wrote: > >> > > > > > >> > > > >> Go to https://github.com/apache/logging-log4j2/compare and > >> click the > >> > > > >> "compare across forks" link at the top to make a PR from your > >> forked > >> > > > >> repo. > >> > > > >> > >> > > > >> On Mon, 25 Jan 2021 at 12:15, Tim Perry <[email protected]> > >> wrote: > >> > > > >> > > >> > > > >> > Matt, > >> > > > >> > > >> > > > >> > Thanks for clarifying. > >> > > > >> > > >> > > > >> > I'd be happy to write some tests and submit a PR. How should I > >> > > submit a > >> > > > >> > pull request? I don't think I can do it from the github repo I > >> > > linked > >> > > > >> to. > >> > > > >> > > >> > > > >> > Thanks, > >> > > > >> > Tim > >> > > > >> > > >> > > > >> > > >> > > > >> > On Mon, Jan 25, 2021 at 9:59 AM Matt Sicker <[email protected]> > >> > > wrote: > >> > > > >> > > >> > > > >> > > I'm just saying that I don't think any of the developers here > >> > > would > >> > > > >> > > object to functional changes you'd like to introduce here, > >> > > especially > >> > > > >> > > if you think this change makes sense for users other than > >> > > yourself. > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > If you submit your changes as a PR (and preferably add > >> automated > >> > > tests > >> > > > >> > > if possible), we'd be happy to merge! > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > On Mon, 25 Jan 2021 at 11:51, Tim Perry <[email protected]> > >> > > wrote: > >> > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > > Matt, et al., > >> > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > > I agree the deployment patterns you mention are more > >> common and > >> > > I > >> > > > >> > > wouldn't > >> > > > >> > > > start a new project embedding log4j in each WAR. However, > >> I'm > >> > > > >> trying to > >> > > > >> > > > upgrade some old spring apps and my hands are tied on the > >> > > deployment > >> > > > >> > > > pattern. > >> > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > > As mentioned in my comment on LOG4J2- 2624, the changes I > >> > > proposed > >> > > > >> don't > >> > > > >> > > > fundamentally change the lifecycle hooks for web modules > >> and > >> > > each > >> > > > >> class > >> > > > >> > > > loader will still have its own independent log4j config. > >> The > >> > > > >> changes just > >> > > > >> > > > provide the ability to stop log4j a little later. To me, > >> this > >> > > is a > >> > > > >> low > >> > > > >> > > risk > >> > > > >> > > > change since the default behaviour is unchanged. If my > >> approach > >> > > of > >> > > > >> > > passing > >> > > > >> > > > the Log4jWebLifeCycle around in the ServletContext is > >> > > unacceptable, > >> > > > >> I'm > >> > > > >> > > > happy to revisit the code and come up with another > >> solution. > >> > > Here > >> > > > >> are the > >> > > > >> > > > proposed changes: > >> > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > >> > > > >> https://github.com/perry2of5/logging-log4j2/commit/56455af53920d69ff7a49a63c5bbf38773069e8d > >> > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > > I'd really like to fix these bugs. If you are telling me > >> there > >> > > are > >> > > > >> more > >> > > > >> > > > important things for the log4j team to work on and that > >> there > >> > > is no > >> > > > >> > > > interest from the log4j committers to make these changes, > >> I can > >> > > > >> accept > >> > > > >> > > > that. However, I think these changes would be welcomed by > >> some > >> > > log4j > >> > > > >> > > users > >> > > > >> > > > and I hope one of the log4j committers will work with me on > >> > > solving > >> > > > >> these > >> > > > >> > > > issues. > >> > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > > Thanks, > >> > > > >> > > > Tim > >> > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > > On Sun, Jan 24, 2021 at 6:29 PM Matt Sicker < > >> [email protected]> > >> > > > >> wrote: > >> > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > I'm not sure how much any of the devs here use the > >> log4j-web > >> > > > >> module > >> > > > >> > > > > anymore (seems more common to use fat jars or one app per > >> > > servlet > >> > > > >> > > > > container instance at least), so it's hard to say about > >> any > >> > > > >> > > > > idiosyncrasies. The main purpose of the lifecycle hooks > >> for > >> > > web > >> > > > >> > > > > modules is to allow each class loader to have its own > >> > > independent > >> > > > >> > > > > log4j config, though I'm not sure how common that > >> deployment > >> > > > >> pattern > >> > > > >> > > > > is anymore. There are alternative strategies such as > >> hooking > >> > > into > >> > > > >> the > >> > > > >> > > > > server code itself so that logging can shutdown with the > >> > > server > >> > > > >> rather > >> > > > >> > > > > than the individual applications, but that's a different > >> use > >> > > case. > >> > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > As for design ideas, I think I had initially wanted to > >> > > refactor > >> > > > >> the > >> > > > >> > > > > web context API to mimic how Spring Framework registers > >> > > itself in > >> > > > >> the > >> > > > >> > > > > ServletContext, though I never got around to doing that, > >> and > >> > > now I > >> > > > >> > > > > typically use JVM-global logging configurations instead, > >> so I > >> > > > >> never > >> > > > >> > > > > revisited that. > >> > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > On Fri, 22 Jan 2021 at 11:53, Tim Perry < > >> [email protected]> > >> > > > >> wrote: > >> > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > Hello, > >> > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > I'd like to help fix LOG4J2-2624 and LOG4J2-1606. How > >> can I > >> > > > >> help? > >> > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > To me, the challenge is to ensure log4j is initialized > >> the > >> > > very > >> > > > >> first > >> > > > >> > > > > time > >> > > > >> > > > > > the ServletContext is provided to any object during > >> > > application > >> > > > >> > > loading > >> > > > >> > > > > and > >> > > > >> > > > > > startup and to stop log4j during the very last event or > >> > > > >> execution > >> > > > >> > > hook a > >> > > > >> > > > > > servlet 3.0 container exposes. Right now using the > >> servlet > >> > > 3.0 > >> > > > >> > > > > > auto-configuration stops log4j too soon in some cases > >> and > >> > > using > >> > > > >> the > >> > > > >> > > > > servlet > >> > > > >> > > > > > 2.5 configuration starts log4j too late in some cases. > >> > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > FWIW, I have posted a proposed fix in > >> > > > >> > > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LOG4J2-1606. > >> I'm not > >> > > > >> sure if > >> > > > >> > > it is > >> > > > >> > > > > > the correct way to go. For one thing, it puts the > >> > > > >> Log4jWebLifeCycle > >> > > > >> > > > > > initializer into the ServletContext so that another > >> object > >> > > can > >> > > > >> grab > >> > > > >> > > it > >> > > > >> > > > > and > >> > > > >> > > > > > use it during log4j shutdown. Somewhere in the log4j > >> dev > >> > > > >> archives I > >> > > > >> > > saw a > >> > > > >> > > > > > note about moving data out of the ServletContext so > >> that it > >> > > > >> can't be > >> > > > >> > > > > > overwritten. I'm not sure if my solution would need to > >> be > >> > > > >> modified or > >> > > > >> > > > > > abandoned in light of this. > >> > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > The code changes I posted are based on a custom > >> log4j-web > >> > > > >> artifact I > >> > > > >> > > > > > created for a client. It works for them on their > >> Tomcat 8.x > >> > > > >> servers. > >> > > > >> > > > > > However, I'm not sure if I'm relying on any > >> idiosyncratic > >> > > > >> behaviour > >> > > > >> > > of > >> > > > >> > > > > > Tomcat or if there are earlier or later servlet > >> container > >> > > > >> events / > >> > > > >> > > hooks > >> > > > >> > > > > > that can be used to trigger configuration to happen > >> earlier > >> > > on > >> > > > >> > > startup or > >> > > > >> > > > > > stop log4j later when an application is stopped. > >> > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > If I can be of any help fixing these issues, I'd like > >> to > >> > > help. > >> > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > I've gotten a lot of good use out of log4j over the > >> years. > >> > > > >> Thank you > >> > > > >> > > for > >> > > > >> > > > > > maintaining it. > >> > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > Tim > >> > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > >> > > > > > >> > > > >> > >
