logging-log4j-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Remko Popma <remko.po...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: status appender?
Date Mon, 14 Dec 2015 21:20:24 GMT
Nick,

Are you sure you want to use a logging framework for this? When I hear terms like "business
event" and "domain socket appender" that makes me think you may want to look at some message
oriented middleware solution, like JMS or the like. 

Remko 

Sent from my iPhone

> On 2015/12/15, at 3:27, Nicholas Duane <nickdu@msn.com> wrote:
> 
> I'll give a brief description on the setup so that hopefully you have a better picture.
> 
> We want to capture a specific type of event, let's say a business event, from all the
applications on the box and get them to a central location.  We're also looking ahead to a
possible PaaS environment and thinking that writing to log files might not be an option. 
Our solution is that all the applications on the box will use our domain socket appender to
write these business events into.  In addition, there will be a daemon on this box listening
on the domain socket.  It will buffer, compress and send the events to a central location.
 Even if we don't want to take into consideration the PaaS environment and thus can consider
writing to local files (as I guess that's the most common logging solution and has its benefits),
there might be issues there.  For instance, let's say we have a process which picks up log
files and sends them centrally.  What happens when new applications are installed on the box?
 We would probably have to update the configuration of this "log file consolidator" to watch
new folder locations.  That might be a bit of a maintenance nightmare.
> 
> If the domain socket appender runs into issues, like it can't open the socket, we need
for someone to look into it.  I guess the thinking is that if we get these ERROR/INFO events
to a central location we can have some monitoring there to address these issues.
> 
> We also, currently, are failing over the event sent to the domain socket appender to
the domain socket appender's logger, which I guess is what you're referring to by "Routing
events being processed by an Appender through a Logger is a bad idea.".  While that is happening
now, that's not the main question I have here.  It's about how to send INFO - ERROR to one
location, or possibly two, and have DEBUG only go to the status logger.
> 
> There is push back on "failing over" the events from the domain socket appender so that
code might get pulled out.
> 
> Thanks,
> Nick
> 
>> Subject: Re: status appender?
>> From: ralph.goers@dslextreme.com
>> Date: Mon, 14 Dec 2015 10:56:11 -0700
>> To: log4j-user@logging.apache.org
>> 
>> I don’t think I understand - “we’re writing to our own logger within our DomainSocketAppender”.
 The status logger in your appender should only be logging errors or other events that occur
within that Appender, which normally would be nothing. Routing events being processed by an
Appender through a Logger is a bad idea.
>> 
>> Ralph
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> On Dec 14, 2015, at 10:17 AM, Nicholas Duane <nickdu@msn.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Thanks.  Yes, that's the one option I was thinking of.  Adding a console or file
appender to our logger.  However, the actual class in question is our DomainSocketAppender.
 This is somewhat related to a previous question I asked about capturing events from our appenders
centrally.  I guess in general, the advice is to log to the status logger in your log4j2 classes.
 We want to capture INFO - ERROR messages centrally so we're writing to our own logger within
our DomainSocketAppender.  It would be nice to have all other events, DEBUG and less specific
(or maybe just all events), go to the status logger and let the application team decide what
they want to do with status logger events.
>>> 
>>> I was just thinking that one other solution would be to log all events within
our DomainSocketsAppender to both its private logger and the status logger, thus somewhat
removing the "routing" within the code.  Our filter on the http appender already filters out
anything less specific than INFO.
>>> 
>>> Thanks,
>>> Nick
>>> 
>>>> Subject: Re: status appender?
>>>> From: ralph.goers@dslextreme.com
>>>> Date: Mon, 14 Dec 2015 09:32:51 -0700
>>>> To: log4j-user@logging.apache.org
>>>> 
>>>> First, what you are wanting to do is, in fact, pretty normal.  However, by
default the StatusLogger that Log4j uses for its components doesn’t use an Appender. Although
the API is the same the internals of the StatusLogger are actually quite different than the
“normal” Log4j implementation.  That said, the StatusLogger normally just writes to the
console.  I actually doubt that that is where you want your debug events to go.  Most people
prefer them to go to a rolling file.
>>>> 
>>>> To accomplish what you want you just need to set up filtering in your configuration
so that the FATAL-INFO events go to one Appender and the DEBUG and TRACE events go to another
Appender.
>>>> 
>>>> Ralph
>>>> 
>>>>> On Dec 14, 2015, at 8:34 AM, Nicholas Duane <nickdu@msn.com> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>> I'm curious if there is such a thing as a StatusAppender in log4j2 which,
as you would guess, is the appender the StatusLogger would use?
>>>>> 
>>>>> Here's what I'm trying to solve, I think.
>>>>> 
>>>>> I've been telling other developers I work with that a piece of code should
only write to a single logger.  The reason for this, in my mind, is that if a piece of code
writes to more than one logger then it essentially has routing logic in it and I would rather
have the routing in the configuration.  For example:
>>>>> 
>>>>> try
>>>>>  {
>>>>>  logger1.info(...);
>>>>>  .
>>>>>  .
>>>>>  .
>>>>>  logger2.debug(...);
>>>>>  }
>>>>> catch(Exception e)
>>>>>  {
>>>>>  logger1.error(...);
>>>>>  }
>>>>> 
>>>>> The above code is sending debug events to a different logger than the
rest of the events it raises.  I would rather have the code send all events to a single logger
and control where those events are routed via the configuration.  Feel free to let me know
whether this is in line with logging principles.
>>>>> 
>>>>> So here's the problem.  We've got some code which writes events to its
logger.  We want to capture these events centrally so we're sending them to a central location
via an HTTP appender.  We want to do this only for FATAL - INFO events, so we're not expecting
a huge load.  DEBUG events however, we'd like to send to the same location as the status logger.
 We can, of course, just add a console appender for DEBUG events but that would have to be
controlled separately from the status logger and ideally it would be nice to just piggy back
on the status logger.  We could have this code write to its private logger and the status
logger for DEBUG events, but then we get into the routing issue I mentioned above.  So I'm
wondering, is there such a thing as a StatusAppender?
>>>>> 
>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>> Nick
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> 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


Mime
View raw message