On Sat, Sep 15, 2018 at 5:22 PM Gary Gregory <garydgreg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Sat, Sep 15, 2018 at 5:16 PM Gary Gregory <garydgreg...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> >> >> On Sat, Sep 15, 2018 at 4:43 PM Gary Gregory <garydgreg...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >>> On Sat, Sep 15, 2018 at 4:40 PM Ralph Goers <ralph.go...@dslextreme.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> If you don’t want to log anything then enable a noop appender that just >>>> returns without doing anything >>>> >>> >>> Oh, I see we already have a NullAppender... >>> >> >> So I can do: >> >> <ScriptAppenderSelector name="SelectIt"> >> <Script language="JavaScript"><![CDATA[ >> ##SPECIAL_THING##]]> >> </Script> >> <AppenderSet> >> <RollingFileAppender name="MyAppender" ... /> >> <Null/> >> </AppenderSet> >> </ScriptAppenderSelector> >> >> Not quite as simple as: >> >> <RollingFileAppender name="MyAppender" enable="##SPECIAL_THING##" ... /> >> >> I often times have to walk our users through some configs so option 2 is >> simpler for them and less error prone... but option 1 will work for now... >> > > The not great thing here is that for each appender I want to be able to > toggle, I have to repeat this pattern... > I have something working, if ponderously, using the ScriptAppenderSelector. After looking at all the configs I had to update, it seems that supporting an "enabled" attribute would be much cleaners. Gary > Gary > >> >> Gary >> >> >>> >>> Gary >>> >>> >>>> >>>> Sent from my iPhone >>>> >>>> > On Sep 15, 2018, at 12:34 PM, Gary Gregory <garydgreg...@gmail.com> >>>> wrote: >>>> > >>>> > On Sat, Sep 15, 2018 at 3:24 PM Ralph Goers < >>>> ralph.go...@dslextreme.com> >>>> > wrote: >>>> > >>>> >> We have an appended selector for this. Why not us it? >>>> >> >>>> > >>>> > Hi, >>>> > >>>> > Because: >>>> > - Conceptually, I am not selecting an appender out of a set, I want >>>> the one >>>> > appender enabled or disabled. >>>> > - In practice, using a ScriptAppenderSelector with a single Appender >>>> means >>>> > my script would have to 'select' a non-existing appender when the >>>> script >>>> > evaluates to false, which would work BUT would emit an ERROR log >>>> event to >>>> > the status logger like "No node named DISABLE_ME in >>>> > NameOfScriptAppenderSelector". This would be a normal configuration, >>>> so an >>>> > ERROR would be very bad for our users. Changing the level of event >>>> would >>>> > not help, unless it was buried at the DEBUG level, which is not good >>>> for >>>> > the current use cases. >>>> > - Alternatively, we could have add a NoOpAppender which I would then >>>> select >>>> > when I want the file appender disabled. This would imply accepting the >>>> > added costs, no matter how minor in memory and speed. >>>> > >>>> > Thoughts? >>>> > >>>> > Gary >>>> > >>>> > >>>> >> >>>> >> Sent from my iPhone >>>> >> >>>> >>> On Sep 15, 2018, at 11:07 AM, Gary Gregory <garydgreg...@gmail.com> >>>> >> wrote: >>>> >>> >>>> >>> Hi All: >>>> >>> >>>> >>> At work, we have an installer program that installs one of five >>>> log4j >>>> >>> configs depending on what the user selects in a UI. Each of these 5 >>>> >> configs >>>> >>> causes log events to end up in different kinds of SQL and NoSQL >>>> >> databases, >>>> >>> you pick one when you install. The installer does a brute force >>>> search >>>> >> and >>>> >>> replace in the log4j file to replace markers with things like >>>> database IP >>>> >>> addresses and port numbers. So far so simple and good. >>>> >>> >>>> >>> The next iteration of the installer provides an additional choice >>>> to log >>>> >> to >>>> >>> a file or not, in addition of one of the 5 databases. >>>> >>> >>>> >>> Option 1? >>>> >>> In order to avoid having 5x2 preset config files in the installer, >>>> I'd >>>> >> like >>>> >>> to add the file config to each of the existing 5 configurations and >>>> have >>>> >>> the file appender enabled or not based on a boolean flag that the >>>> >> installer >>>> >>> can implement as part of its search and replace. You'd end up with: >>>> >>> >>>> >>> <AppenderRef ref="foo" enabled="true|false" /> >>>> >>> <AppenderFoo enabled="true|false" /> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> If an appender is disabled it does not end up in the Log4j object >>>> tree at >>>> >>> all. It is like it never existed in the config file. >>>> >>> >>>> >>> Option 2? >>>> >>> Add a second log4j2.xml, say log4j2-rollingfile.xml config file and >>>> have >>>> >>> Log4j combine it with the other log4j.xml on the class path. How? >>>> >>> >>>> >>> Other options? >>>> >>> >>>> >>> Thank you, >>>> >>> Gary >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >>>> >>>>
