Java has a pre main. Like wise have another file xml or properties for
log4j but default null & disabled. Have to set system property to
enable it.
On 9/29/12, Ralph Goers <ralph.go...@dslextreme.com> wrote:
> With just using a rank the test impl would be lower than the core impl and
> so the core impl would be chosen and yes. it would work.
>
> The user already has a way to specify the factory they want with a system
> property, but I'd prefer something better than that. It might be nice to
> allow a log4j2.properties file that can specify the LoggerContextFactory and
> ContextSelector and possibly other things. I'm not really sure about this -
> just looking for better ideas.
>
> Ralph
>
>
> On Sep 28, 2012, at 3:06 PM, Gary Gregory wrote:
>
>> OK, so back to:
>>
>> "I think a better way to do this is to add one more piece of information
>> to the meta-data - a rank/weight as is being done with the configuration
>> factory. Then we will pick the one with the highest rank."
>>
>> So I really want my impl, I scan the system and edit some config file and
>> use a higher rank? Seems for advanced users but workable.
>>
>> In the case I have today, the test impl would have a lower rank than the
>> stock impl? Then it would work within an IDE. Check?
>>
>> Gary
>>
>> On Fri, Sep 28, 2012 at 5:55 PM, Ralph Goers <ralph.go...@dslextreme.com>
>> wrote:
>> While it is consistent I wouldn't call it deterministic. For example,
>> JBoss 5 has an SLF4J implementation in common/lib. Your application may
>> have one in WEB-INF/lib. One of them will always win but how is it
>> deterministic which one it will be? What if it isn't the one you want?
>> What can be done to override it?
>>
>> Ralph
>>
>>
>> On Sep 28, 2012, at 1:01 PM, Gary Gregory wrote:
>>
>>> Agree but doesn't the current code use the classpath order? If not, could
>>> it? That would be deterministic, just like I can place a jar at the front
>>> of the CP to override one or more classes.
>>>
>>> Gary
>>>
>>> On Fri, Sep 28, 2012 at 3:51 PM, Ralph Goers <ralph.go...@dslextreme.com>
>>> wrote:
>>> The problem I have is that it isn't deterministic and I very much dislike
>>> that. SLF4J is that way today and it is annoying that you can't
>>> guarantee the winner.
>>>
>>> Ralph
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sep 28, 2012, at 11:21 AM, Gary Gregory wrote:
>>>
>>>> What about just picking the first one like in the example below (note
>>>> the new error message)
>>>>
>>>> Gary
>>>>
>>>> On Sep 28, 2012, at 14:06, Ralph Goers <ralph.go...@dslextreme.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> That is interesting. So Eclipse is seeing both the API's test factory
>>>>> and the real implementation. I guess that makes sense. I would
>>>>> probably have the same problem in IntelliJ except that I never run
>>>>> tests for anything in my IDE but always run Maven from the command line
>>>>> - even to debug.
>>>>>
>>>>> At one point I considered allowing multiple implementations, but
>>>>> passing events to two logging implementations seems like a performance
>>>>> nightmare. Also, the Log4j 2 API isn't really intended as a competitor
>>>>> or replacement for SLF4J.
>>>>>
>>>>> I think a better way to do this is to add one more piece of information
>>>>> to the meta-data - a rank/weight as is being done with the
>>>>> configuration factory. Then we will pick the one with the highest
>>>>> rank.
>>>>>
>>>>> Ralph
>>>>>
>>>>> On Sep 28, 2012, at 10:51 AM, Gary Gregory wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi All,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I am using Eclipse as my IDE and when I run
>>>>>> org.apache.logging.log4j.core.BasicLoggingTest I get an NPE because
>>>>>> org.apache.logging.log4j.LogManager.factory is null. It is null
>>>>>> because when the static initializer runs it picks up 2 factories
>>>>>> instead of one:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> [org.apache.logging.log4j.core.impl.Log4jContextFactory@39c8c1,
>>>>>> org.apache.logging.log4j.SimpleLoggerContextFactory@1ab2b55].
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Can we be more lenient?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Instead of:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> if (factories.size() != 1) {
>>>>>> logger.fatal("Unable to locate a logging
>>>>>> implementation");
>>>>>> } else {
>>>>>> factory = factories.get(0);
>>>>>> }
>>>>>>
>>>>>> How about:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> if (factories.size() != 1) {
>>>>>> logger.error("Expected a single logging
>>>>>> implementation, not {}, picking the first: {}", factories.size(),
>>>>>> factories.get(0));
>>>>>> }
>>>>>> factory = factories.get(0);
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> E-Mail: garydgreg...@gmail.com | ggreg...@apache.org
>>>>>> JUnit in Action, 2nd Ed: http://bit.ly/ECvg0
>>>>>> Spring Batch in Action: http://bit.ly/bqpbCK
>>>>>> Blog: http://garygregory.wordpress.com
>>>>>> Home: http://garygregory.com/
>>>>>> Tweet! http://twitter.com/GaryGregory
>>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> E-Mail: garydgreg...@gmail.com | ggreg...@apache.org
>>> JUnit in Action, 2nd Ed: http://bit.ly/ECvg0
>>> Spring Batch in Action: http://bit.ly/bqpbCK
>>> Blog: http://garygregory.wordpress.com
>>> Home: http://garygregory.com/
>>> Tweet! http://twitter.com/GaryGregory
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> E-Mail: garydgreg...@gmail.com | ggreg...@apache.org
>> JUnit in Action, 2nd Ed: http://bit.ly/ECvg0
>> Spring Batch in Action: http://bit.ly/bqpbCK
>> Blog: http://garygregory.wordpress.com
>> Home: http://garygregory.com/
>> Tweet! http://twitter.com/GaryGregory
>
>
--
Sent from my mobile device
Regards
Tushar Kapila
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: log4j-dev-unsubscr...@logging.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: log4j-dev-h...@logging.apache.org
