Look out for dup() files On Mon, Apr 19, 2021, 4:52 PM Sixx XT <sixx5...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Thank you im sorry when I find a job ill pay u > > On Mon, Apr 19, 2021, 4:48 PM Sixx XT <sixx5...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Do I need to disable drive >> >> On Mon, Apr 19, 2021, 4:41 PM Tim Perry <tim.v...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> After further thought, I am threading the context name into the location >>> where the StatusConfiguration creates the StatusConsoleListener and >>> registering the context name there. >>> >>> In addition, if the new logger would write to a destination other than >>> standard out or standard error then I do not reconfigure the existing >>> logger in StatusConfiguration.configureExistingStatusConsoleListener(), >>> instead I have the >>> >>> I am now correctly closing the status logger when the context is stopped. >>> >>> I'll push the changes to github after I do a full build >>> >>> On Mon, Apr 19, 2021 at 12:17 PM Tim Perry <tim.v...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> > I rewrote this to shut down listeners based on the contextName. In >>> > testing, I discovered that the StatusConsoleListener is created in >>> > StatusConfiguration, but neither StatusConfiguration nor >>> > StatusConsoleListener receive events to indicate when they should stop. >>> > >>> > It appears that only one StatusConsoleListener object is ever created >>> and >>> > it is never shut down. Looking at the api XmlConfiguration, it calls >>> > StatusConfiguration.initilize() which then either changes the log >>> level to >>> > match the config being parsed or creates a new StatusLogger directed >>> to the >>> > file indicated in the XML configuration. Unless I'm reading the code >>> wrong, >>> > this means that the status logger output location depends on if a >>> previous >>> > app was loaded. If so, then that location will continue to receive >>> > StatusLogger messages but at the log level of the new application's >>> config. >>> > Am I reading this correctly? If I am, is this the intended behaviour? >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > On Wed, Feb 24, 2021 at 8:29 AM Matt Sicker <boa...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> > >>> >> The StatusLogger has various listeners attached. I think adding and >>> >> removing listeners on startup and shutdown of a LoggerContext might be >>> >> a potential way to do this? >>> >> >>> >> On Wed, 24 Feb 2021 at 01:07, Tim Perry <tim.v...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >> > >>> >> > Ralph, >>> >> > >>> >> > Thanks for the review. Yep, that *is* a problem...I knew it was a >>> >> singleton >>> >> > but didn't think through the use case you describe. This is ironic >>> >> since a >>> >> > few months ago I recommended that one of my clients bundle log4j in >>> each >>> >> > war rather than on Tomcat's classpath so there would be less chance >>> of >>> >> > instances walking on each other. Sigh. >>> >> > >>> >> > >>> >> > What is the correct behaviour if: >>> >> > >>> >> > - log4j is on Tomcat's classpath >>> >> > - App A has status_A.log >>> >> > - App B has status_B.log >>> >> > >>> >> > Now assume both apps are started. At this point I assume we should >>> be >>> >> > writing to both status_A.log and status_B.log. Now we stop App B. I >>> >> assume >>> >> > we should stop writing to status_B.log but not status_A.log. >>> Further, I >>> >> > assume that if both apps are unloaded from Tomcat, but Tomcat is >>> left >>> >> > running, then the status logger should send its messages to standard >>> >> out. >>> >> > If my assumptions are correct, then maybe we need to keep track of >>> what >>> >> > file, if any, each web app requested messages to be written to. On >>> top >>> >> of >>> >> > that, I think we need a Callback in Log4j's shutdown registry and we >>> >> need >>> >> > to run it last. >>> >> > >>> >> > >>> >> > In some ways this seems like an XY problem. Is the correct question >>> how >>> >> do >>> >> > we reconfigure the logging when a web app shuts down? Or should it >>> be: >>> >> > should the StatusLogger be shared across multiple LoggerContexts? >>> >> > >>> >> > >>> >> > This will be more interesting than I first realized! >>> >> > >>> >> > Tim >>> >> > >>> >> > >>> >> > On Tue, Feb 23, 2021 at 10:38 PM Ralph Goers < >>> >> ralph.go...@dslextreme.com> >>> >> > wrote: >>> >> > >>> >> > > Yeah, I started a review but then I thought it probably would be >>> >> better to >>> >> > > respond here. >>> >> > > >>> >> > > You are on the right track but there is a problem. StatusLogger >>> is a >>> >> > > singleton - there is one instance anchored in a static. You are >>> >> invoking >>> >> > > the shutdown logic from the shutdown of the LoggerContext which is >>> >> not a >>> >> > > singleton. Log4j supports multiple LoggerContexts in an >>> application. >>> >> For >>> >> > > example, if you are old school and running multiple web >>> applications >>> >> in >>> >> > > Tomcat and have Log4j on Tomcat’s class path then you will have >>> >> multiple >>> >> > > LoggerContexts with a single StatusLogger. So if one web app gets >>> >> > > redeployed then its LoggerContext will be shutdown and a new one >>> >> created >>> >> > > all while another app is continuing to run. >>> >> > > >>> >> > > If you’ll notice the StatusConfiguration class in log4j-core >>> tries to >>> >> > > accommodate for this during startup, but it doesn’t do anything at >>> >> > > shutdown. StatusLogger currently isn’t smart enough to handle one >>> app >>> >> > > writing to one destination and a different on writing to a >>> different >>> >> one. >>> >> > > Since StatusLogger is a singleton it can’t really know which app a >>> >> status >>> >> > > log event is for. >>> >> > > >>> >> > > There are a couple of ways I can think of to handle this but none >>> of >>> >> them >>> >> > > is perfect. >>> >> > > Modify StatusConfiguration to keep track of what each >>> >> StatusConfiguration >>> >> > > set up and reset to whatever the prior StatusConfiguration had. >>> The >>> >> problem >>> >> > > with this is that applications might shutdown in a different order >>> >> than >>> >> > > they were started, so figuring out what the prior configuration >>> was >>> >> could >>> >> > > be difficult. >>> >> > > Add the call to prepareToStop() as a new Callback to Log4j’s >>> shutdown >>> >> > > registry. However, this callback would need to run last. The >>> shutdown >>> >> > > registry currently doesn’t support a way to specify the order of >>> >> callbacks. >>> >> > > Support for that would need to be added for this to work. >>> >> > > >>> >> > > Ralph >>> >> > > >>> >> > > > On Feb 23, 2021, at 10:48 PM, Tim Perry <tim.v...@gmail.com> >>> wrote: >>> >> > > > >>> >> > > > Ralph, >>> >> > > > >>> >> > > > I implemented what you suggested. Feel free to suggest >>> improvements. >>> >> > > > https://github.com/apache/logging-log4j2/pull/469 >>> >> > > > >>> >> > > > Tim >>> >> > > > >>> >> > > > On Tue, Feb 23, 2021 at 2:14 PM Ralph Goers < >>> >> ralph.go...@dslextreme.com> >>> >> > > > wrote: >>> >> > > > >>> >> > > >> I would suggest that if it is writing to something other than >>> >> System.out >>> >> > > >> that it be redirected back there and then the OutputStream be >>> >> closed. >>> >> > > >> However, I’ve not looked at the code recently so I am not sure >>> >> what it >>> >> > > >> takes to do that. >>> >> > > >> >>> >> > > >> Ralph >>> >> > > >> >>> >> > > >>> On Feb 23, 2021, at 2:22 PM, Tim Perry <tim.v...@gmail.com> >>> >> wrote: >>> >> > > >>> >>> >> > > >>> Thank you, Volkan. >>> >> > > >>> >>> >> > > >>> I'm not quite ready to submit a PR. I was hoping some of you >>> with >>> >> more >>> >> > > >>> knowledge of log4j-core would weigh in on what we should do >>> about >>> >> > > >> shutting >>> >> > > >>> down the StatusLogger. >>> >> > > >>> >>> >> > > >>> My thought is we choose one of two options: >>> >> > > >>> >>> >> > > >>> Option A: >>> >> > > >>> 1) check if any StatusLogger is writing to standard out or >>> >> standard >>> >> > > >> error. >>> >> > > >>> If not, add one. >>> >> > > >>> 2) stop any loggers that don't write to standard out or >>> standard >>> >> error. >>> >> > > >>> >>> >> > > >>> Option B: >>> >> > > >>> 1) stop any loggers that don't write to standard out or >>> standard >>> >> error. >>> >> > > >>> >>> >> > > >>> Option A could cause the log messages to be split across two >>> >> > > >> destinations, >>> >> > > >>> but they all get sent somewhere. Option B could lose shutdown >>> >> messages >>> >> > > >> when >>> >> > > >>> writing to a file, but by that point it may not matter. >>> >> > > >>> >>> >> > > >>> If any of you have a better idea, I'm happy to implement it. >>> If >>> >> nobody >>> >> > > >>> weighs in on the best option, I'll probably submit Option A >>> as a >>> >> pull >>> >> > > >>> request on Friday or Saturday. >>> >> > > >>> >>> >> > > >>> Tim >>> >> > > >>> >>> >> > > >> >>> >> > > >> >>> >> > > >> >>> >> > > >>> >> > > >>> >> >>> > >>> >>
