Hi, I'm glad you got the permissions sorted but your initial post suggested you were hoping to have multiple JVMs writing to the same file.
This would most likely be a bad thing and would probably leave you with mangled logs. Regards Andy > -----Original Message----- > From: William Noto [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: 18 March 2005 19:13 > To: 'Log4J Users List'; 'James Stauffer' > Subject: RE: logging to one file from two separate users / same group > > Ah ha - > > Somewhere some script was telling tomcat to use umask 022. We got around > this by inserting umask 002 in our Catalina.sh script found in > ~tomcat/bin/. > > Hope this may help someone else in the future. > > -----Original Message----- > From: James Stauffer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Friday, March 18, 2005 11:33 AM > To: Log4J Users List > Subject: Re: logging to one file from two separate users / same group > > The code doesn't explicitly specify permissions (It would be hard to > do that in a cross-platform manner) so my only advice is to research > into getting Linux to set the correct permissions. > > On Fri, 18 Mar 2005 11:05:48 -0500, William Noto <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > Thanks for the very quick reply, James. I believe that I currently > allow > > group write in the directory. When I execute "umask -S", I see: > > "u=rwx,g=rwx,o=rx" and when I execute straight "umask", I get: "0002" > > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] logs]$ umask -S > > u=rwx,g=rwx,o=rx > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] logs]$ umask > > 0002 > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] logs]$ ls -la > > total 140 > > drwsrwsr-x 2 tstream apps 4096 Mar 18 10:07 . > > drwxrwxr-x 11 tstream apps 4096 Mar 17 19:08 .. > > -rw-r--r-- 1 tomcat apps 5584 Mar 18 10:07 logfile.log > > -rw-rw-rw- 1 tomcat apps 79236 Mar 17 20:26 logfile.log.2005-03-17 > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] logs]$ > > > > You can see that yesterday's logfile (logfile.log.2005-03-17) has > read/write > > permission across the board, but that is only because I manually chmoded > > that file yesterday during testing. > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: James Stauffer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: Friday, March 18, 2005 10:48 AM > > To: Log4J Users List > > Subject: Re: logging to one file from two separate users / same group > > > > Can you set the umask so that the group has write permissions? > > > > On Fri, 18 Mar 2005 10:34:34 -0500, William Noto <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > wrote: > > > Hi all - > > > > > > I've looked around on the web and through some message boards trying > to > > find > > > if someone has already asked this question. I've read through the FAQ > and > > I > > > don't think that I've seen this asked before. Please excuse me if > this > > > question HAS been asked before. > > > > > > I'm creating a code base that will be shared between a web application > > > (running under tomcat) and a few standalone classes. I would like > > > everyone's logging to share the same log files however. I am > developing > > on > > > a PC but my staging and production environments are both running > Linux. > > > > > > Also - I've set up my logs to rollover so that each new day will have > its > > > own log. > > > > > > My issue pertains to the write permissions of the log files. When the > web > > > application logs first, the log file is created by the tomcat user > (and > in > > > the tomcat group) in my logs directory and it has only read > permissions > at > > > the group level and other level. Only the tomcat user has read/write > > access > > > to the log file. When the application that runs outside of tomcat > > executes > > > first (under a different username, btw), the logfile is created such > that > > it > > > is owned by that user and again it has the same permissions. > > > > > > So I am wondering - Is it possible to configure log4j so that it will > > create > > > log files with group write permission by default? > > > > > > I have set my logging directory's sticky bit to have all new files be > > > created with the correct group. The tomcat user and the non-tomcat > user > > are > > > both in the same group. > > > > > > Is logging via sockets the only way to resolve this kind of issue? > That > > > seems like overkill. > > > > > > Thanks much and again - I'm sorry if I am repeating a question asked > > before. > > > > > > William > > > > > > William B. Noto Open Finance 71 Gansevoort Street, Suite 2D, New > > York, > > > NY 10014 > > > Tel + 1 646 230 8666 Fax + 1 646 230 8657 > > > > > > > > > > -- > > James Stauffer > > Are you good? Take the test at http://www.livingwaters.com/good/ > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > > -- > James Stauffer > Are you good? Take the test at http://www.livingwaters.com/good/ > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
