Yes, and them immediately committed it. I am -1 on this commit until I get an explanation as to why what we currently do isn’t better.
Ralph > On Sep 22, 2016, at 9:29 AM, Gary Gregory <garydgreg...@gmail.com> wrote: > > I created https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LOG4J2-1608 > <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LOG4J2-1608> > > Gary > > On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 8:22 AM, Matt Sicker <boa...@gmail.com > <mailto:boa...@gmail.com>> wrote: > Oh that explains it, thanks for the info! > > On 22 September 2016 at 10:21, Ralph Goers <ralph.go...@dslextreme.com > <mailto:ralph.go...@dslextreme.com>> wrote: > PatternLayout defaults to implicitly add %ex or one of its variations to your > pattern if you don’t specify it. To disable exception logging you have to use > %noex. > > Ralph > >> On Sep 22, 2016, at 6:55 AM, Matt Sicker <boa...@gmail.com >> <mailto:boa...@gmail.com>> wrote: >> >> I usually don't even include %exception in my pattern layouts for some >> reason, probably because of the double logging. So I'd go with (1) as well. >> >> On 22 September 2016 at 02:59, Gary Gregory <garydgreg...@gmail.com >> <mailto:garydgreg...@gmail.com>> wrote: >> Hi All, >> >> The method >> org.apache.logging.log4j.web.appender.ServletAppender.append(LogEvent) is >> defined as: >> >> @Override >> public void append(final LogEvent event) { >> servletContext.log(((AbstractStringLayout) >> getLayout()).toSerializable(event)); >> } >> >> Instead of: >> >> @Override >> public void append(final LogEvent event) { >> servletContext.log(((AbstractStringLayout) >> getLayout()).toSerializable(event), event.getThrown()); >> } >> >> Which does not give the best information we have to the servlet context >> logging. >> >> The tricky part is that to avoid logging the exception twice like in our >> test org.apache.logging.log4j.web.ServletAppenderTest. To avoid the double >> logging, we could (1) document not using a %exception in the pattern layout. >> >> That or (yikes) (2) provide a variation of the toSerializable(event) like >> toSerializable(event, false), where the boolean is an ignoreException >> parameter. It seems there are plenty of places where exceptions are treated >> specially already, this would be another. >> >> I like (1) better because it is simpler. >> >> Thoughts? >> >> Thank you, >> Gary >> >> >> -- >> E-Mail: garydgreg...@gmail.com <mailto:garydgreg...@gmail.com> | >> ggreg...@apache.org <mailto:ggreg...@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 <http://garygregory.wordpress.com/> >> Home: http://garygregory.com/ <http://garygregory.com/> >> Tweet! http://twitter.com/GaryGregory <http://twitter.com/GaryGregory> >> >> >> -- >> Matt Sicker <boa...@gmail.com <mailto:boa...@gmail.com>> > > > > > -- > Matt Sicker <boa...@gmail.com <mailto:boa...@gmail.com>> > > > > -- > E-Mail: garydgreg...@gmail.com <mailto:garydgreg...@gmail.com> | > ggreg...@apache.org <mailto:ggreg...@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 <http://garygregory.wordpress.com/> > Home: http://garygregory.com/ <http://garygregory.com/> > Tweet! http://twitter.com/GaryGregory <http://twitter.com/GaryGregory>
