Rats! It's not so simple as what I wrote. The crux of the problem is that the various Configuration classes need to control what shows up on the console from the StatusLogger. The way they've been doing that is finding the existing listener and reconfiguring it. There are some problems that will arise as you add new Configuration instances (e.g. multiple web apps sharing the same classloader) where these configurations build up over time. Additionally, nothing ever cleans them up as a configuration is reloaded so you might start logging at debug level to the console even though there is no configuration telling it to log at debug level. Also, depending on the order of reconfigurations, you might only be logging fatals to the console even though the current configuration is set to debug level.
It seemed more appropriate to me to introduce a new concept, the StatusFilter. Since these are really trying to filter what shows up on the console, it seemed more appropriate than a listener. My solution to these problems is what brought about my API changes to StatusLogger, which is somewhat significant. But to solve these problems, I think my changes are necessary. If we consider these changes important enough, I'd like to get them in before 2.0, even though some may consider StatusLogger to not be "part of the API" even though it is in log4j-api. I checked in the first set of changes to the LOG4J2-609 branch. If we don't make these changes for 2.0, I really want to put JavaDoc on the stuff in ...log4j.status that clearly states this is for internal use only and may change in a breaking way in the future. On Sun, Jul 13, 2014 at 8:41 AM, Remko Popma <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Sunday, July 13, 2014, Bruce Brouwer <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Here is what I am thinking. I will make the branch tomorrow and put just >> the minimal changes in place with the modified StatusLogger api. This way >> when I fix things completely we won't have a breaking api change after 2.0 >> release. If you like it, we can put just that in trunk and release. >> > Sounds good. > > >> On Jul 12, 2014 4:03 PM, "Bruno Mahé" <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> Hi, >>> >>> We have been testing Apache Log4j 2.0rc2 at Tango for a few weeks and >>> have been very impressed. >>> We are in the process of migrating our services to Apache Log 2.0rc2 so >>> they can be ready for roll out when 2.0 comes out. >>> >>> The only issue we had so far was about configuring async logger for all >>> loggers. Having to pass system properties to Apache Tomcat in order to >>> activate and configure async loggers is not convenient. >>> >>> There is also a more detailed email/blog post with some numbers we >>> collected being worked on. >>> >>> Thanks, >>> Bruno >>> >>> On 07/11/2014 05:50 AM, Matt Sicker wrote: >>> >>> Do it! Can't wait! Then I'll be able to upgrade from 1.2 at work. :) >>> >>> >>> On 11 July 2014 03:58, Remko Popma <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> No objection at all! >>>> >>>> I would like to add the tool to generate Custom/Extended Loggers, and >>>> do a doc fix for LOG4J2-631. >>>> >>>> Also, the site now has an empty section "Custom Plugins" under manual > >>>> Extending Log4j. Shall we remove that before the release? >>>> >>>> Sent from my iPhone >>>> >>>> > On 2014/07/11, at 15:50, Ralph Goers <[email protected]> >>>> wrote: >>>> > >>>> > I would like to do the release for Log4j 2.0 this weekend. Are there >>>> any objections? >>>> > >>>> > Ralph >>>> > --------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] >>>> > For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] >>>> > >>>> >>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] >>>> For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Matt Sicker <[email protected]> >>> >>> >>> -- Bruce Brouwer about.me/bruce.brouwer [image: Bruce Brouwer on about.me] <http://about.me/bruce.brouwer>
