I think it is still unclear what you mean by "below". Normally I would
consider "trace" to be at the low end and "fatal" to be at the high end,
but I don't think there is a low and high in Log4J. When you say "below"
I take it you mean DEBUG and TRACE, but the only thing that makes sense
to me is to keep INFO, ERROR and FATAL on.
Regards, Bart.
Op 26-8-2015 om 3:46 schreef Nicholas Duane:
Yes and no. The user might know how to turn on/off logging, but they might not
understand what the enterprise is wanting to do. We would like to make it hard, if not
impossible, to turn off logging of INFO and below (or above for .NET) events. So even if
something thinks they should turn off logging and sets the level to "OFF" we
still want INFO and below to be logged.
Thanks,
Nick
Subject: Re: redefining existing levels?
From: remko.po...@gmail.com
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 2015 09:25:09 +0900
To: log4j-user@logging.apache.org
Could you explain a bit more about your use case before we zoom in on a
specific solution?
I'd like to understand better what you mean by [if someone sets the level to
"OFF"]?
What is the scenario? Someone logs into the server and modifies the
configuration and makes a mistake? Or is this a client distributed to your
users' PCs and they may modify the configuration?
It sounds like you are trying to protect against human error; is that the case?
Sent from my iPhone
On 2015/08/26, at 8:37, Nicholas Duane <nic...@msn.com> wrote:
No. Redefining existing levels is to help ensure we have "24x7" logging always on. So
even if someone sets the level to "OFF" we still get INFO and above. Basically we'll
have levels higher (or lower based on what platform we're talking about) than INFO OFF by default
and only turn them on when needed.
Thanks,
Nick
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 2015 08:33:34 +0900
Subject: Re: redefining existing levels?
From: remko.po...@gmail.com
To: log4j-user@logging.apache.org
Is redefining levels a way to work around the issue you had with the range
check?
I've replied to your range check question with a link to an example config.
On Wed, Aug 26, 2015 at 8:02 AM, Gary Gregory <garydgreg...@gmail.com>
wrote:
Well, let's all work together to get you up and running. Hopefully we'll
get other devs to keep chiming in.
Gary
On Tue, Aug 25, 2015 at 3:58 PM, Nicholas Duane <nic...@msn.com> wrote:
I will get to that. However, I assume that works as that's documented
pretty well. So I'm looking at the other things which may or may not
work
as I have to find out what blocking issues we're going to run into.
Redefining existing levels is one. I sent the other email regarding
range
level filter as we also need that to work. It works in .NET. So far
it's
looking like I'll need to write my own filter for log4j2 in order to get
range level filtering working.
Thanks,
Nick
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 2015 15:54:08 -0700
Subject: Re: redefining existing levels?
From: garydgreg...@gmail.com
To: log4j-user@logging.apache.org
Ah, well, let's start with the documented stuff we know should work ;-)
Gary
On Tue, Aug 25, 2015 at 3:19 PM, Nicholas Duane <nic...@msn.com>
wrote:
Thanks. I assumed my 'BUSINESS' level is working using the
<CustomLevel>,
though I haven't tried it yet as I was trying to validate redefining
existing level.
Thanks,
Nick
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 2015 14:32:01 -0700
Subject: Re: redefining existing levels?
From: garydgreg...@gmail.com
To: log4j-user@logging.apache.org
Nick,
Your BUSINESS level should be configurable per
https://logging.apache.org/log4j/2.x/manual/customloglevels.html#DefiningLevelsInConfiguration
I can't look into the rest ATM.
Gary
On Tue, Aug 25, 2015 at 2:16 PM, Nicholas Duane <nic...@msn.com>
wrote:
I guess I should have mentioned, though it's probably obvious,
that I'm
only interested in a configuration based solution. I'm not
looking
for a
code solution.
Thanks,
Nick
From: nic...@msn.com
To: log4j-user@logging.apache.org
Subject: RE: redefining existing levels?
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 2015 16:05:47 -0400
Thanks for the reply. I've seen that documentation and it
appears
to
be
geared toward defining (NEW) custom levels. It doesn't mention
anything
about redefining existing log4j2 levels. I also tried it and so
far
in my
testing it doesn't seem to work. Below is a snippet of my
config. By
the
way, you'll see that I am currently trying the <CustomLevel> and
<level>.
At first I had just tried <CustomLevel> but it didn't appear to
work
so I
thought I would put the same elements I have in my .NET config
which
work.
Unfortunately it still doesn't work.
.
.
.
<level>
<name value="OFF"/>
<value value="500"/>
</level>
<CustomLevels>
<CustomLevel name="OFF" intLevel="500"/>
</CustomLevels>
.
.
.
<Loggers>
<Logger name="HelloWorld" level="OFF">
<AppenderRef ref="debug"/>
</Logger>
<Root>
</Root>
</Loggers>
I then set my logger level to "OFF" and didn't see any debug
events
show
up. If I set the level to "DEBUG" they show up in the log. The
docs
say
that DEBUG is set to 500, so me setting OFF to 500 and then
setting the
level on my logger to OFF should have allowed the debug events to
flow
to
the log file, correct?
Thanks,
Nick
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 2015 12:50:32 -0700
Subject: Re: redefining existing levels?
From: garydgreg...@gmail.com
To: log4j-user@logging.apache.org
Nicholas,
Yes, please see
https://logging.apache.org/log4j/2.x/manual/customloglevels.html
If the documentation can be improved, please let us know how.
Gary
On Tue, Aug 25, 2015 at 12:42 PM, Nicholas Duane <
nic...@msn.com
wrote:
Can existing log4j2 levels be redefined? I'm able to do this
in
log4net.
I have yet to see any documentation telling me that I can do
it,
however,
there was none telling me I could do it for .NET either. I
just
happen to
stumble upon a post which eluded to it. Here is what I've
done in
a
log4net config file:
<configuration>
.
.
.
<log4net>
<level>
<name value="Off"/>
<value value="40000"/>
<level>
<level>
<name value="Business"/>
<value value="130000"/>
<level>
.
.
.
</log4net>
.
.
.
</configuration>
As you can see I created my own 'Business' level. I also
redefined
Off to
40000 which happens to be the INFO level. This makes it such
that
if
they
set the level to Off they will still receive INFO and higher
level
events.
Can the same thing be done in log4j2?
Thanks,
Nick
--
E-Mail: garydgreg...@gmail.com | ggreg...@apache.org
Java Persistence with Hibernate, Second Edition
<http://www.manning.com/bauer3/>
JUnit in Action, Second Edition <
http://www.manning.com/tahchiev/>
Spring Batch in Action <http://www.manning.com/templier/>
Blog: http://garygregory.wordpress.com
Home: http://garygregory.com/
Tweet! http://twitter.com/GaryGregory
--
E-Mail: garydgreg...@gmail.com | ggreg...@apache.org
Java Persistence with Hibernate, Second Edition
<http://www.manning.com/bauer3/>
JUnit in Action, Second Edition <http://www.manning.com/tahchiev/>
Spring Batch in Action <http://www.manning.com/templier/>
Blog: http://garygregory.wordpress.com
Home: http://garygregory.com/
Tweet! http://twitter.com/GaryGregory
--
E-Mail: garydgreg...@gmail.com | ggreg...@apache.org
Java Persistence with Hibernate, Second Edition
<http://www.manning.com/bauer3/>
JUnit in Action, Second Edition <http://www.manning.com/tahchiev/>
Spring Batch in Action <http://www.manning.com/templier/>
Blog: http://garygregory.wordpress.com
Home: http://garygregory.com/
Tweet! http://twitter.com/GaryGregory
--
E-Mail: garydgreg...@gmail.com | ggreg...@apache.org
Java Persistence with Hibernate, Second Edition
<http://www.manning.com/bauer3/>
JUnit in Action, Second Edition <http://www.manning.com/tahchiev/>
Spring Batch in Action <http://www.manning.com/templier/>
Blog: http://garygregory.wordpress.com
Home: http://garygregory.com/
Tweet! http://twitter.com/GaryGregory
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: log4j-user-unsubscr...@logging.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: log4j-user-h...@logging.apache.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: log4j-user-unsubscr...@logging.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: log4j-user-h...@logging.apache.org
