A logging “Level” is a level of importance. That is why there is a hierarchy. If you want informational messages then you also would want warnings and errors.
“BUSINESS” does not convey the same meaning. Rather, it is some sort of category, which is what Markers are for. Using the class name as the logger name is a convention. If you really want the class name, method name or line number then you should be specifying that you want those from the logging event, rather than the logger name. Unless location information is disabled you always have access to that information. In short, different loggers are used primarily as a way of grouping sets of messages - for example all org.hibernate events can be routed to a specific appender or turned off en masse. Levels are used to filter out noise across a set of logging events. Markers are used to categorize logging events by arbitrary attributes. Ralph > On Aug 31, 2015, at 8:10 AM, Nicholas Duane <nic...@msn.com> wrote: > > Thanks for the feedback. I will look into Markers and MDC. > > With respect to using a separate logger, it would seem I would lose the > information about what application code, eg. the class logger, is sourcing > the event. We would like to have this information. On top of that, it seems > odd, maybe to me only, that for this new level we have our own logger. It > seemed reasonable to me that this new event we want to capture is just a new > level. Just like a DEBUG event is different from an INFO event. If I define > a BUSINESS level why would that not follow the same design as the current > levels? You wouldn't suggest having different loggers for TRACE DEBUG INFO > WARN ERROR FATAL, would you? I think one of the reasons someone on our side > is suggesting I have separate loggers is that they think the overhead of > filtering at the appender is going to have a noticeable impact. Our plan, at > least the one I have now in my head, is that we'll have some number of > appenders in the root. We'll then filter x < INFO events to a tracing > appender, INFO <= x <= FATAL to a logging appender, and our custom level will > go to another appender. Thoughts? > > Thanks, > Nick > >> Subject: Re: approach for defining loggers >> From: ralph.go...@dslextreme.com >> Date: Sat, 29 Aug 2015 20:59:36 -0700 >> To: log4j-user@logging.apache.org >> >> >>> On Aug 29, 2015, at 7:44 PM, Nicholas Duane <nic...@msn.com> wrote: >>> >>> I'm curious if there is a prescribed approach to defining loggers. Let me >>> state what my assumption is. I assume that normally if some piece of code >>> wants to log events/messages that it should create a logger for itself. I >>> guess a reasonable name to use is the class name itself. In terms of >>> logger configuration I would expect that no loggers are specified in the >>> log4j configuration UNLESS is needs settings other than the default. The >>> root logger would specify the default settings, eg. level and appenders. >>> If some piece of code tied to a logger needs to enable tracing in order to >>> debug an issue then you would add that logger to the configuration and set >>> the level less specific for that logger. Is this a typical and reasonable >>> approach? >> >> What you describe here is the common convention. It is a reasonable approach. >> >>> >>> I asked because we have the need for a new type of event. To have this >>> event flow to where we want it to flow the plan is to have a custom level >>> and have all events at that level captured by a specific appender. My >>> assumption was that for existing applications we'd just need to add our >>> appender to the root and add our custom level. The app would need to be >>> modified to log our new event at the custom level. However, someone >>> suggested that we could also create a separate logger for this event. My >>> thinking is that while we don't ever want to turn off logging of this >>> event, loggers represent "event sources", e.g the code raising the events >>> and thus having multiple different pieces of code use the same logger >>> wouldn't allow you to turn on/off logging from those different sections of >>> code independently. I think the current configuration includes all the >>> loggers. Normally I would expect there to be many, on the order of 10's or >>> 100's, loggers within an application. However, in the case I was given >>> there were only a handful because I think this handful is shared. So as I >>> mentioned, this doesn't sound like an ideal design as you have less >>> granularity on what you can turn on/off. >> >> You have a few options. Using a CustomLevel would not be the option I would >> choose. Creating a custom Logger will certainly work and makes routing the >> message to the appropriate appender rather easy. Another approach is to use >> Markers. Markers are somewhat hierarchical so you can use them for a >> variety of purposes. If you look at how Log4j handles event logging it >> actually does both - it specifies EventLogger as the name of the logger to >> use and it uses Markers to identify the kind of event. >> >> A third option is to use the MDC or Logger properties. If you do that then >> you can have information included in the actual logging event that can >> affect how it is routed. I also built a system that uses the RFC5424 format >> so that the event could have lots of key/value pairs to identify the events. >> >> Unfortunately, without knowing more details I don’t know that I can give you >> a better idea on how I would implement it. >> >> Ralph >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> 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
