Hi,
You don't need to put
<appender-ref ref="STDOUT" />
in your com.mypackage.util.test Category and I think you'll get only 1 log
line for each log
I hope it'll help
franck
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ron Cain" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "LOG4J Users Mailing List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, October 26, 2001 10:13 PM
Subject: Duplicate logs
> This has got to be the single least understood
> and frustrating (for me at least) part of Log4J --
> eliminating duplicate logs. I can't explain why
> I should be getting duplicates in the scenario below.
>
> I am using an XML file with the DOMConfigurator
> with this snippet of XML:
>
> <appender name="STDOUT" class="org.apache.log4j.ConsoleAppender">
> <layout class="org.apache.log4j.PatternLayout">
> <param name="ConversionPattern"
> value="%d{HH:mm:ss.SSS} %-5p [%t] - %m\n"/>
> </layout>
> </appender>
>
> <category name="com.mypackage">
> <priority value="fatal" />
> <appender-ref ref="STDOUT" />
> </category>
>
> <category name="com.mypackage.util.test">
> <priority value="debug" />
> <appender-ref ref="STDOUT" />
> </category>
>
> Now, when I use getInstance() for the util.test
> class above and do:
> category.log(Priority.DEBUG, "hello");
>
> I see 2 identical lines of logging:
>
> 12:57:32.200 DEBUG [main] - hello
> 12:57:32.200 DEBUG [main] - hello
>
> I give up -- why?
>
> Yes, I hear that parent appenders are "inherited"
> but I was asking to log at DEBUG level on the child, and
> tracing through Log4J showed me that the appender
> for "com.mypackage" was also logging, even though
> it was set to Priority.FATAL.
>
> A log at DEBUG level would not have logged if done
> directly against the parent category, so why should
> it happen indirectly through the child?
>
> How do I do what I want to do, namely establish
> a parent logging only FATAL or WARN with individual
> children logging DEBUG. This has got to be the
> singular most popular thing to try.
>
> This is of course Log4J 1.1.3
>
> Respectfully frustrated,
> ... ron
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Don Taylor [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Friday, October 26, 2001 4:28 AM
> To: LOG4J Users Mailing List
> Subject: Re: Some "basic(?)" questions
>
>
> You are correct in stating that you cannot log until you've called one
> of the configurator's configure() method. Until then, log4j simply
> isn't initialized.
>
> During initialization the category classes will be initialized. That's
> the beauty of Singletons. Remember that these cached categories you're
> talking about are simply *references* to a Singleton category object.
> So there's no harm done in getting a reference before the object is
> actually initialized, since there's only one instance of that object in
> the system.
>
> I want to clarify what happened when you say the child category logged
> it's messages twice. Are you saying you saw two entries in the same log
> file, the log file you modified the Appender to use before adding it to
> the child category? I hope you say yes! :)
>
> Likewise, I would also expect that the parent category is now logging
> to this new file also. Correct?
>
> If you take a quick peak at the Category source then you'll see what's
> going on. Each category maintains a list of appenders. When you got the
> appender from the parent category you got a reference to the parent's
> appender. You then shoved that reference into the child's appender
> list. So the child and parent each have a reference to the same
> appender object in their appenders list. When you go to log with the
> additivity set, they will log to all the appenders in the child's
> appender list and then move on to the parent's and so on. Since a
> reference to the same appender object is in both lists, you got two
> messages. When you set the additivity off you stopped the traversal to
> the parent's appender list. So then you only got the one message.
>
> -- Don
>
> --- MiChAeL xEnAkIs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Don -
> >
> > Thanks for the feedback. Yeah, I was already working w/ the
> > frameworks
> > which led me to these questions.
> >
> > When referring to a "generic" Category, my meaning was that, for
> > instance,
> > when the cached (static) Category(s) are first instantiated, they
> > are, well
> > not "generic", but filled w/ whatever the default properties would be
> > -
> > which I'm not sure what those are. I was aware that only a single
> > instance
> > of a Category will exist for a particular Category name, I just got
> > thrown
> > off by the definitions being included w/ the declarations of the
> > static
> > variables, though I shouldn't have.
> >
> > Of course, I never considered just what other configuration occurs
> > during
> > the .confingure() method (and it sounds that no logging can actually
> > occur
> > till that happens... is _that_ true?) Given that, the examples could
> > just
> > have well put off the calls to .getInstance(...) till after the
> > .configure()
> > call w/out any adverse affect.
> >
> > Which all leads into another question that came up while fiddling
> > today. Do
> > Appender(s) conform to the same "rule of thumb" in terms of
> > uniqueness,
> > i.e., will their only ever be a single Appender instance for a given
> > Appender name? If so, does this span all Appender sub-classes (I'm
> > guessing
> > yes)? I ask as I had some test code which pulled an Appender from a
> > Category, created a new child Category, changed the fileName
> > attribute for
> > the Appender and then set it as the Appender for the new child
> > Category.
> > When I logged, I was suprised to see the messages logged twice, i.e.,
> > the
> > child Category logged to its Appender as well as the Appender
> > inherited from
> > its parent which, apparently, are both the same Appender. Setting
> > additivity on the Category remedied this... and now I know.
> >
> > tanks
> > mx.
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Don Taylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > To: "LOG4J Users Mailing List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Sent: Thursday, October 25, 2001 5:08 AM
> > Subject: Re: Some "basic(?)" questions
> >
> >
> > >
> > > --- MiChAeL xEnAkIs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > Hey all -
> > > >
> > >
> > > <snip>
> > >
> > > >
> > > > I'm wanting to go the route of configuring the logging framework
> > via
> > > > the XML "properties" file w/ the following reservations:
> > > >
> > > > When looking through the example code provided, I notice that the
> > > > example-classes each have static Category vars which are _the_
> > > > categories used for logging (which are declared and defined w/in
> > the
> > > > declaration statements). However, these classes also include
> > calls
> > > > to BasicConfigurator<or a subclass>.configure() or
> > .configure(String
> > > > configFile). As I understand, the Log4J framework will maintain
> > the
> > > > instances of the various categories such that separate calls to
> > > > Category.getInstance(<instance-name>) will _always_ return the
> > same
> > > > instance for that particular name.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Yes. If you call Category.getInstance() with the same class/string
> > > name, you'll get the same category. The examples are simply caching
> > the
> > > result since there is a hashing performance hit for calling
> > > Category.getInstance() repeatedly for the same category.
> > >
> > > > Now, as I also understand it, when a class is first referenced,
> > its
> > > > static var's are instantiated at that time. For the sake of
> > > > argument, assume that I have static Category object defined for
> > each
> > > > class _and_ my .xml properties file provides the actual (full)
> > > > definitions for these, i.e. including the Appender definition,
> > file
> > > > locations, etc.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Ok.
> > >
> > > > So, up to the point of my calling the "appropriate" .configure()
> > > > method, the static Category for each class will be just a
> > "generic"
> > > > Category, yes?
> > > >
> > >
> > > Not sure this matters. Until log4j is initialized you can't do any
> > > logging anyway. I'm not sure what you mean by a "generic" category.
> > >
> > > > Also, when .configure() is called, will the current "generic"
> > > > Category definition(s) be replaced w/ those in the .xml
> > properties
> > > > file (thereby ensuring a single Category instance for each
> > > > <instance-name>)?
> > > >
> > >
> > > In your way of thinking, yes.
> > >
> > > The best way to evaluate log4j is to try it out. Go ahead download
> > it,
> > > create the scenario you've just described and make sure it works as
> > you
> > > expect. If you have problems then, we'll be better able to help you
> > > out.
> > >
> > > -- Don
> > >
> > > __________________________________________________
> > > Do You Yahoo!?
> > > Make a great connection at Yahoo! Personals.
> > > http://personals.yahoo.com
> > >
> > >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > 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]
> >
>
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Make a great connection at Yahoo! Personals.
> http://personals.yahoo.com
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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]
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
