logging-log4j-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Mikael Ståldal <mikael.stal...@magine.com>
Subject Re: approach for defining loggers
Date Wed, 09 Sep 2015 07:47:09 GMT
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 <nickdu@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: garydgregory@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.goers@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 <nickdu@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.goers@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 <nickdu@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.goers@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 <nickdu@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.goers@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 <nickdu@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-unsubscribe@logging.apache.org
> > > >>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail:
> log4j-user-help@logging.apache.org
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > >>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: log4j-user-unsubscribe@logging.apache.org
> > > >>>> For additional commands, e-mail:
> log4j-user-help@logging.apache.org
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: log4j-user-unsubscribe@logging.apache.org
> > > For additional commands, e-mail: log4j-user-help@logging.apache.org
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> > E-Mail: garydgregory@gmail.com | ggregory@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.staldal@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.

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message