Faster, don't have to worry about order. -----Original Message----- From: Mark Lybarger [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, August 09, 2005 8:20 AM To: Log4J Users List Subject: Re: jms appender
no, i haven't looked into the socket stuff. what advantages does this provide over jms/jdbc? On 8/8/05, Schuweiler, Joel J. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Have you looked at the socket stuff? That's what I currently use. > > -----Original Message----- > From: Mark Lybarger [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Monday, August 08, 2005 10:37 AM > To: Log4J Users List > Subject: jms appender > > we're interested in creating a centraliszed logging solution. we'd also > like > to have logging have as little impact to the application (logging should > be > fast). our thought is to combine a jms logger on the "client" side, and > have > a jms listerner which logs the message using jdbc logger. > > are there any gotchas to watch out for something like this? will the > logging > maintain its consistancy over a local filesystem based logging (meaning > that > the logs are in the correct order)? will a jms logger on the client be > heavier or lighter than a filesystem based logger? would it be a good idea > to use a MDB to process the incoming logs, or just a jms listener? > > thanks! > ~mark > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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]
