A file is not a good target for multiple users or threads, unless you have
some type of service in front of it. If you do, you have a database server.

To be rhetorical: Is building this type of architecture (basically, the IO
handling of a DB server) into fileappender in scope of the apache logger?

Workaround: If you have a highly concurrent, multiple user scenario, just
target something that can safely handle multiple threads and users. E.g. a
database via ADOAppender. I started there, and never looked back. I use the
console / file appenders during unit tests

I understand the overhead of database deployment could be an issue in some
cases - people want to use a file as a target because the file system is
always there. To meet this need, maybe someone has a demo of some really
lightweight / easy configuration that targets something designed for
multiple users (doesn't require a database server?)


On 8/1/07, Curt Arnold <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> There has been a thread on log4php-dev (http://marc.info/?l=log4php-
> dev&m=118520958818276&w=2) that I'd like to get an opinion from the
> log4net developers.  Basically, the user wishes to allow multiple
> user accounts to be able to write to the same log file and they are
> being prevented since the default file permissions set when the first
> user creates the log file prevents the second user from writing to
> it.  The request was to add a umask or chmod configuration option to
> FileAppender.
>
> Aside from the point, that simultaneous access to a common log file
> is unsupported and unreliable in log4j and log4cxx (can't speak for
> log4net and log4php), are there any facilities in log4net for
> controlling the file permissions.  I didn't see any from reviewing
> the log4net code, but I assume that one solution would be to specify
> a <securityContext> for the FileAppender to use a common user.
>
> If you have any comments or advice, either post here or better yet,
> subscribe to the low-volume log4php-dev mailing list (log4php-dev-
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]) and post there.
>

Reply via email to