No. Redefining existing levels is to help ensure we have "24x7" logging always
on. So even if someone sets the level to "OFF" we still get INFO and above.
Basically we'll have levels higher (or lower based on what platform we're
talking about) than INFO OFF by default and only turn them on when needed.
Thanks,
Nick
> Date: Wed, 26 Aug 2015 08:33:34 +0900
> Subject: Re: redefining existing levels?
> From: remko.po...@gmail.com
> To: log4j-user@logging.apache.org
>
> Is redefining levels a way to work around the issue you had with the range
> check?
> I've replied to your range check question with a link to an example config.
>
> On Wed, Aug 26, 2015 at 8:02 AM, Gary Gregory <garydgreg...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Well, let's all work together to get you up and running. Hopefully we'll
> > get other devs to keep chiming in.
> >
> >
> > Gary
> >
> > On Tue, Aug 25, 2015 at 3:58 PM, Nicholas Duane <nic...@msn.com> wrote:
> >
> > > I will get to that. However, I assume that works as that's documented
> > > pretty well. So I'm looking at the other things which may or may not
> > work
> > > as I have to find out what blocking issues we're going to run into.
> > > Redefining existing levels is one. I sent the other email regarding
> > range
> > > level filter as we also need that to work. It works in .NET. So far
> > it's
> > > looking like I'll need to write my own filter for log4j2 in order to get
> > > range level filtering working.
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > Nick
> > >
> > > > Date: Tue, 25 Aug 2015 15:54:08 -0700
> > > > Subject: Re: redefining existing levels?
> > > > From: garydgreg...@gmail.com
> > > > To: log4j-user@logging.apache.org
> > > >
> > > > Ah, well, let's start with the documented stuff we know should work ;-)
> > > >
> > > > Gary
> > > >
> > > > On Tue, Aug 25, 2015 at 3:19 PM, Nicholas Duane <nic...@msn.com>
> > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Thanks. I assumed my 'BUSINESS' level is working using the
> > > <CustomLevel>,
> > > > > though I haven't tried it yet as I was trying to validate redefining
> > > > > existing level.
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > Nick
> > > > >
> > > > > > Date: Tue, 25 Aug 2015 14:32:01 -0700
> > > > > > Subject: Re: redefining existing levels?
> > > > > > From: garydgreg...@gmail.com
> > > > > > To: log4j-user@logging.apache.org
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Nick,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Your BUSINESS level should be configurable per
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > >
> > https://logging.apache.org/log4j/2.x/manual/customloglevels.html#DefiningLevelsInConfiguration
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I can't look into the rest ATM.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Gary
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Tue, Aug 25, 2015 at 2:16 PM, Nicholas Duane <nic...@msn.com>
> > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > I guess I should have mentioned, though it's probably obvious,
> > > that I'm
> > > > > > > only interested in a configuration based solution. I'm not
> > looking
> > > > > for a
> > > > > > > code solution.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > > > Nick
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > From: nic...@msn.com
> > > > > > > To: log4j-user@logging.apache.org
> > > > > > > Subject: RE: redefining existing levels?
> > > > > > > Date: Tue, 25 Aug 2015 16:05:47 -0400
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Thanks for the reply. I've seen that documentation and it
> > appears
> > > to
> > > > > be
> > > > > > > geared toward defining (NEW) custom levels. It doesn't mention
> > > > > anything
> > > > > > > about redefining existing log4j2 levels. I also tried it and so
> > > far
> > > > > in my
> > > > > > > testing it doesn't seem to work. Below is a snippet of my
> > > config. By
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > way, you'll see that I am currently trying the <CustomLevel> and
> > > > > <level>.
> > > > > > > At first I had just tried <CustomLevel> but it didn't appear to
> > > work
> > > > > so I
> > > > > > > thought I would put the same elements I have in my .NET config
> > > which
> > > > > work.
> > > > > > > Unfortunately it still doesn't work.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > .
> > > > > > > .
> > > > > > > .
> > > > > > > <level>
> > > > > > > <name value="OFF"/>
> > > > > > > <value value="500"/>
> > > > > > > </level>
> > > > > > > <CustomLevels>
> > > > > > > <CustomLevel name="OFF" intLevel="500"/>
> > > > > > > </CustomLevels>
> > > > > > > .
> > > > > > > .
> > > > > > > .
> > > > > > > <Loggers>
> > > > > > > <Logger name="HelloWorld" level="OFF">
> > > > > > > <AppenderRef ref="debug"/>
> > > > > > > </Logger>
> > > > > > > <Root>
> > > > > > > </Root>
> > > > > > > </Loggers>
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I then set my logger level to "OFF" and didn't see any debug
> > events
> > > > > show
> > > > > > > up. If I set the level to "DEBUG" they show up in the log. The
> > > docs
> > > > > say
> > > > > > > that DEBUG is set to 500, so me setting OFF to 500 and then
> > > setting the
> > > > > > > level on my logger to OFF should have allowed the debug events to
> > > flow
> > > > > to
> > > > > > > the log file, correct?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > > > Nick
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Date: Tue, 25 Aug 2015 12:50:32 -0700
> > > > > > > > Subject: Re: redefining existing levels?
> > > > > > > > From: garydgreg...@gmail.com
> > > > > > > > To: log4j-user@logging.apache.org
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Nicholas,
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Yes, please see
> > > > > > > >
> > https://logging.apache.org/log4j/2.x/manual/customloglevels.html
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > If the documentation can be improved, please let us know how.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Gary
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On Tue, Aug 25, 2015 at 12:42 PM, Nicholas Duane <
> > nic...@msn.com
> > > >
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Can existing log4j2 levels be redefined? I'm able to do this
> > > in
> > > > > > > log4net.
> > > > > > > > > I have yet to see any documentation telling me that I can do
> > > it,
> > > > > > > however,
> > > > > > > > > there was none telling me I could do it for .NET either. I
> > > just
> > > > > > > happen to
> > > > > > > > > stumble upon a post which eluded to it. Here is what I've
> > > done in
> > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > log4net config file:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > <configuration>
> > > > > > > > > .
> > > > > > > > > .
> > > > > > > > > .
> > > > > > > > > <log4net>
> > > > > > > > > <level>
> > > > > > > > > <name value="Off"/>
> > > > > > > > > <value value="40000"/>
> > > > > > > > > <level>
> > > > > > > > > <level>
> > > > > > > > > <name value="Business"/>
> > > > > > > > > <value value="130000"/>
> > > > > > > > > <level>
> > > > > > > > > .
> > > > > > > > > .
> > > > > > > > > .
> > > > > > > > > </log4net>
> > > > > > > > > .
> > > > > > > > > .
> > > > > > > > > .
> > > > > > > > > </configuration>
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > As you can see I created my own 'Business' level. I also
> > > redefined
> > > > > > > Off to
> > > > > > > > > 40000 which happens to be the INFO level. This makes it such
> > > that
> > > > > if
> > > > > > > they
> > > > > > > > > set the level to Off they will still receive INFO and higher
> > > level
> > > > > > > events.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Can the same thing be done in log4j2?
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > > > > > Nick
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > E-Mail: garydgreg...@gmail.com | 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
> > > > > > > > Home: http://garygregory.com/
> > > > > > > > Tweet! http://twitter.com/GaryGregory
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --
> > > > > > E-Mail: garydgreg...@gmail.com | 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
> > > > > > Home: http://garygregory.com/
> > > > > > Tweet! http://twitter.com/GaryGregory
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > E-Mail: garydgreg...@gmail.com | 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
> > > > Home: http://garygregory.com/
> > > > Tweet! http://twitter.com/GaryGregory
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > E-Mail: garydgreg...@gmail.com | 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
> > Home: http://garygregory.com/
> > Tweet! http://twitter.com/GaryGregory
> >
