Then perhaps you should create your own facade for doing business event
logging, which could then forward them to Log4j in an appropriate way.
On Wed, Sep 9, 2015 at 4:49 AM, Nicholas Duane <nic...@msn.com> wrote:
> I was just about to reply to your previous email about using a single
> "business" logger, or some hierarchy of business loggers, to log business
> events and say that we might go that route. However, now that you brought
> up the post from Ralph, which I just replied to, I'm thinking a logger
> won't work either for the same reason I listed in my reply to Ralph's post.
>
> You could do:
>
> logger.info("Hello");
> logger.fatal("Hello");
> logger.error("Hello");
> ...
>
> It's confusing as there are n ways to log a business event that way and
> they will all do the same thing. Which one should a developer choose.
> Should I say pick any one, it doesn't matter?
>
> Thanks,
> Nick
>
> > Date: Tue, 8 Sep 2015 19:28:21 -0700
> > Subject: Re: approach for defining loggers
> > From: garydgreg...@gmail.com
> > To: log4j-user@logging.apache.org
> >
> > Or
> > Logger logger = LogManager.getLogger("Business");
> > ...
> > logger.info("Hello");
> >
> > Gary
> >
> > On Tue, Sep 8, 2015 at 7:24 PM, Ralph Goers <ralph.go...@dslextreme.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Can you please clarify, “If we had some way to know an event is a
> business
> > > event we wouldn’t need level”? I do not understand how you can code
> > > logger.log(BUSINESS, msg) but you cannot code logger.info(BUSINESS,
> msg).
> > >
> > > Ralph
> > >
> > > > On Sep 8, 2015, at 6:09 PM, Nicholas Duane <nic...@msn.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > I looked over that stackoverflow post and I'm still not seeing a good
> > > match as a way for us to log our business events.
> > > >
> > > > A business event I guess is an event which extends whatever schema we
> > > come up with for a business event. While an instance of this schema
> could
> > > be logged at any level, that really doesn't make sense in our scenario,
> > > regardless of whether some marker was supplied. If we had some way to
> know
> > > an event is a business event we wouldn't need level. We could of
> course
> > > add some property to our schema which indicates the 'category' of the
> > > event, 'business' being one such category. Instead we were thinking we
> > > could just use level to indicate that an event is a business event.
> > > >
> > > > As I mentioned, we're looking to capture 'trace' level events to one
> > > store, 'info' - 'fatal' level events to another store, and 'business'
> > > events to yet another store. For 'trace' and 'info' - 'fatal' it seems
> > > reasonable to filter on level within the appender to get those events
> to
> > > the appropriate location. It seemed reasonable to do something
> similar for
> > > 'business'.
> > > >
> > > > I also looked into the EventLogger but not sure that's appropriate.
> For
> > > one we lose the granularity to control a specific piece of code from
> > > generating business events. This is most likely a non-issue as I have
> > > mentioned that we don't want to turn business logging off. The other
> is
> > > that we lose the name of the logger as it would be the same for
> everyone.
> > > Not sure this is that big a deal either as I guess you might be able to
> > > capture component name, though I would rather distinguish using logger
> name.
> > > >
> > > > Thanks,
> > > > Nick
> > > >
> > > >> From: ralph.go...@dslextreme.com
> > > >> Subject: Re: approach for defining loggers
> > > >> Date: Mon, 7 Sep 2015 20:39:11 -0700
> > > >> To: log4j-user@logging.apache.org
> > > >>
> > > >> I still don’t understand why you don’t want to use Markers. They
> were
> > > designed exactly for the use case you are describing.
> > > >>
> > > >> You might set retention policies for debug vs info, error and fatal,
> > > but a BUSINESS marker could cross-cut them all. That is exactly why
> it is
> > > NOT a level. IOW, it gives you a second dimension for filtering. Ceki
> > > invented Markers when he created SLF4J. For his point of view see
> > >
> http://stackoverflow.com/questions/16813032/what-is-markers-in-java-logging-frameworks-and-that-is-a-reason-to-use-them
> > > <
> > >
> http://stackoverflow.com/questions/16813032/what-is-markers-in-java-logging-frameworks-and-that-is-a-reason-to-use-them
> > > >.
> > > >>
> > > >> Ralph
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>> On Sep 7, 2015, at 5:54 PM, Nicholas Duane <nic...@msn.com> wrote:
> > > >>>
> > > >>> If I'm attempting to control all the logging from the configuration
> > > and I don't know the complete set of loggers in my application as there
> > > could be 100's or 1000's, wouldn't it be hard to separate events based
> on
> > > loggers? It would seem much easier to separate events based on
> level. In
> > > addition, level might be a more reasonable approach for separating.
> For
> > > example, if I want to send all events to some big-data backend I might
> want
> > > to separate out traces and debug from info to fatal as traces and
> debug are
> > > most likely less important from a systems management aspect. My
> retention
> > > period for traces and debug might be just a couple days. The retention
> > > period for info to fatal could be 30 days. Business level might be 2
> > > years. Any system management notifications would probably be driven
> off of
> > > info to fatal events and not trace and debug events, which is another
> > > reason you might want to separate by level.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Thanks,
> > > >>> Nick
> > > >>>
> > > >>>> Subject: Re: approach for defining loggers
> > > >>>> From: ralph.go...@dslextreme.com
> > > >>>> Date: Mon, 31 Aug 2015 08:50:58 -0700
> > > >>>> To: log4j-user@logging.apache.org
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> 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
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: log4j-user-unsubscr...@logging.apache.org
> > > For additional commands, e-mail: log4j-user-h...@logging.apache.org
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> > 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
>
>
--
[image: MagineTV]
*Mikael Ståldal*
Senior software developer
*Magine TV*
mikael.stal...@magine.com
Regeringsgatan 25 | 111 53 Stockholm, Sweden | www.magine.com
Privileged and/or Confidential Information may be contained in this
message. If you are not the addressee indicated in this message
(or responsible for delivery of the message to such a person), you may not
copy or deliver this message to anyone. In such case,
you should destroy this message and kindly notify the sender by reply
email.
