Well, you can actually do that. It is just not my number one recommendation
:-) I'm pretty sure I have answered how to do that a few times. It just needs
to be documented.
The actual code to do this is
LoggerContext ctx = (LoggerContext) LogManager.getContext(false);
Configurat
I can live with having to use the Core directly to change logger
levels, as opposed to using the API. But your solution of cloning,
changing, and replacing the configuration seems extremely heavy and
excessive for merely changing the level for a single logger. There are
a lot of other things that h
I guess I have to disagree. With Logback it is more explicit since SLF4J is its
API. The more of this stuff that gets added to the API the more difficult it
is going to be to keep the API separate from the implementation. My view is
that the API is primarily for applications that want to use
The way I recommend would be to clone the active Configuration, make the
desired modifications to it and then replace the Configuration. That will take
care of updating all the loggers and won't have threading issues. I noticed
that the JMX stuff doesn't do that.
Ralph
On Jul 22, 2013, at 1
This seems like an "obvious" feature and should be part of the public
API/feature set (IMO).
Gary
On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 3:08 PM, Nick Williams <
nicho...@nicholaswilliams.net> wrote:
> We do the _exact same thing_ in our apps that use Log4j 1. Being able to
> do this is crucial to us. Being a
We do the _exact same thing_ in our apps that use Log4j 1. Being able to do
this is crucial to us. Being able to do this using the API is ideal and
obviously preferred so that the Core can be a runtime dependency, but as long
as we can do it one way or another we're ok.
Nick
On Jul 22, 2013, a
Here is a user story I have at work all the time, which I'd like to be able
to do in Log4J 2 when we eventually migrate to it.
Our server starts. A couple of days later, something goes wrong. Our user
contacts us and we tell them to use our admin console to enable debugging
for X and Y. This cause
Can you explain what it is you are really trying to do? Rather than just
answer specific questions I am wondering if there isn't a better way to do what
you want.
Ralph
On Jul 22, 2013, at 7:14 AM, SMITH, CURTIS wrote:
> From a thread back in May:
>
> My question to the below snips of the t
>From a thread back in May:
My question to the below snips of the thread are;
My app has many Catagories (using 1.x terminology). To setLevel in 1.x I had
to getCurrentCatagories() and iterate over the list setting level.
In 2.x, does the code below set all Appenders regardless of what Level t
