How would you pass in a non-string into the conversion pattern?
--- Weston Weems <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> No... I honestly didnt have anything in mind specifically... just
> didnt know if the conversion would just take string type values...
>
> I guess its not a big deal at all.. just cur
No... I honestly didnt have anything in mind specifically... just
didnt know if the conversion would just take string type values...
I guess its not a big deal at all.. just curious
On 6/2/05, Ron Grabowski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I don't understand your final question. What are you trying t
I don't understand your final question. What are you trying to log?
"just get to use simple types"
Are you wanting to log the output from something like a
BinaryFormatter?
--- Weston Weems <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Well my main goals are:
>
> log additional info (totally understand how to
Well my main goals are:
log additional info (totally understand how to do that one)
explicitly log to email etc from code (I guess I could just get a
logger thats designed to do that and only that...
and I can prolly just filter on log text, so that stuff thats database
related might be emailed,
Log statements are sent to a Logger which in turn writes to one or more
Appenders. First you must get a Logger. Most people use the class name
as the name of the logger:
namespace Company.Project
{
public class Foo
{
ILog log = LogManager.GetLogger(typeof(Foo));
public void Test
Re your question (2) -- I also had trouble figuring out how to do it
from the documentation, but here is the solution I found -- no idea
whether it is the best solution.
In the code, store a process-wide value, e.g.:
log4net.GlobalContext.Properties["pid"] =
Process.GetCurrentProcess().Id
I've just begun to play with log4net after trying endlessly to get
Enterprise Library working as I'd like it.
I do have a few questions I was unable to find the answers for on my
own (reading documentation/manual on logging.apache.org)
this is all .net 1.1 and using 1.9b or whatever the latest bu
The issue is that the AppenderSkeleton takes a conservative
implementation attitude and provides the basic locking that most
appender subclasses would need. It locks on the appender instance, this
does serialise the outputting for that appender instance. While this is
good for many appenders it doe
Thank you very much for your response.
Ping Xie
CACI
4831 Walden Lane
Lanham, MD 20706
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
(301) 306-8200 - Main
(301) 306-2829 - Direct
"Nicko Cadell"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
06/02/2005 03:16 PM
Please respond to
"Log4NET User"
To
"Log4NET User"
cc
Subject
RE: Lo
> -Original Message-
> From: Schweizer Andreas [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: 31 May 2005 11:25
> To: 'Log4NET User'
> Cc: Borlet-Hôte Alain
> Subject: RE: A couple of questions and comments
>
> Hi list, hi Ron!
>
> first, thank you Ron for your detailed answer.
>
> > It sounds li
The MDC (and in 1.2.9 the ThreadContext) use thread local storage.
Values stored in the MDC are specific to each managed thread. If managed
threads are reused, as in ASP.NET, then any previously set MDC values
may still be set for the next request.
Nicko
> -Original Message-
> From: Ping
Paul,
You are explicitly asking for the logger called
'Jkd.Vor.Utilities.Logger' and using that one logger instance. The use
of:
System.Reflection.MethodBase.GetCurrentMethod().DeclaringType
Is a convenience if you want to copy the same boilerplate code into each
class, however it is just equiva
Richard,
This looks like bug exactly as you have described. If you could go ahead
and create a bug for this in JIRA
http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LOG4NET that would be great. I will
look at rewriting that chunk of code with rather more comments.
Cheers,
Nicko
> -Original Message-
App Block - not yet. I'll do some digging in there and see if, for this
type of logging it is a better fit.
However, I was hoping to get the solution using what I'd already done with
log4net. I'll do some digging in nlog. Overrigding the doappend call is a
potentially viable option, however, wo
[Moved to the log4net-user list]
You can configure a FileAppender to use the built-in XmlLayout, this
will generate a file containing the logger, level, message and more for
each event. The configuration is as follows:
If you need a different XML output format then you can write your ow
Nicko checked in a MSMQ appender into source control a few days ago.
I'm not familiar with MSMQ in terms of what it guarantees to capture
(is it just a sink?). You could try writing things to there then write
another program to extract the data out and insert it into the
database.
I glanced at NLo
A nice idea, unfortunately though I'd still be blocked when I talked to
the appender :(
-Original Message-
From: Kevin Williams [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 02 June 2005 15:27
To: Log4NET User
Subject: Re: ASP.NET Blocking Problem
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> My concern with implementin
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
My concern with implementing buffering is that if my appdomain dies I
will lose the contents of the buffer. I've seen the app domain die in
testing and can't afford to lose the information in my live application.
I also have to guarantee that this data has reached the da
Hi Darren,
An idea would be to extract the DoAppend function into a separate class
(DoActionHelper)
Then, in the DoAction of the AppenderSkeleton, you check the active thread's
named slots if you have an instance of your class for that specific thread.
If you do, you reuse the class for that thre
I have verified that I have one instance of the appenderskeleton and
that every request I have is contending for the lock in the DoAppend.
With upwards of 300 clients even implementing buffering I would pile up
behind this lock (especially if I had more than one appender).
My concern with implemen
According to this website:
http://www.connectionstrings.com/
Sql Server allows for Max Pool Size and Min Pool Size to be specified
in the connection string. Have you verified that only a single
connection is being used? Have you verified that log messages are being
lost when buffering is on? Whe
The other thing I would add is that it seems strange to
introduce this choke point. My database access has x amount of concurrent
connections available to it, however, because of this behaviour (and without the
buffering on) I'm reducing myself to 1 connection which doesn't seem very
effici
22 matches
Mail list logo
