Can’t you just put a comment in the config file that states the minimum logging level is info and that it is not to be changed under any circumstances?
Ralph > On Aug 26, 2015, at 9:27 AM, Nicholas Duane <nic...@msn.com> wrote: > > Maybe what I'm trying to do is not that useful. However, I'm guessing the > person mucking around with things would probably feel uncomfortable deleting > entries in the config. If they are familiar with log4j they might feel > comfortable setting the level if they think they should be turning things off. > > Basically, we have what we'll call "always on" or "24x7" logging. This is > about always having INFO and more critical turned on. I'm just looking for > ways to help enforce that. > > Thanks, > Nick > >> Date: Wed, 26 Aug 2015 09:24:07 -0700 >> Subject: Re: redefining existing levels? >> From: garydgreg...@gmail.com >> To: log4j-user@logging.apache.org >> >> On Wed, Aug 26, 2015 at 9:19 AM, Nicholas Duane <nic...@msn.com> wrote: >> >>> I guess the main use case we're trying to solve is someone, maybe some >>> admin or maybe a developer asking the admin, thinking they should turn >>> logging off and thus sets the level to "OFF". We always want INFO and more >>> critical levels to be on no matter what. >>> >> >> But if a user gets in a config file and sets the root level to off, how can >> you stop him or her from removing your filters and custom levels? >> >> Gary >> >>> >>> Thanks, >>> Nick >>> >>>> Subject: Re: redefining existing levels? >>>> To: log4j-user@logging.apache.org >>>> From: x...@dds.nl >>>> Date: Wed, 26 Aug 2015 17:55:23 +0200 >>>> >>>> I think it is still unclear what you mean by "below". Normally I would >>>> consider "trace" to be at the low end and "fatal" to be at the high end, >>>> but I don't think there is a low and high in Log4J. When you say "below" >>>> I take it you mean DEBUG and TRACE, but the only thing that makes sense >>>> to me is to keep INFO, ERROR and FATAL on. >>>> >>>> Regards, Bart. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Op 26-8-2015 om 3:46 schreef Nicholas Duane: >>>>> Yes and no. The user might know how to turn on/off logging, but they >>> might not understand what the enterprise is wanting to do. We would like >>> to make it hard, if not impossible, to turn off logging of INFO and below >>> (or above for .NET) events. So even if something thinks they should turn >>> off logging and sets the level to "OFF" we still want INFO and below to be >>> logged. >>>>> >>>>> Thanks, >>>>> Nick >>>>> >>>>>> Subject: Re: redefining existing levels? >>>>>> From: remko.po...@gmail.com >>>>>> Date: Wed, 26 Aug 2015 09:25:09 +0900 >>>>>> To: log4j-user@logging.apache.org >>>>>> >>>>>> Could you explain a bit more about your use case before we zoom in on >>> a specific solution? >>>>>> >>>>>> I'd like to understand better what you mean by [if someone sets the >>> level to "OFF"]? >>>>>> What is the scenario? Someone logs into the server and modifies the >>> configuration and makes a mistake? Or is this a client distributed to your >>> users' PCs and they may modify the configuration? >>>>>> >>>>>> It sounds like you are trying to protect against human error; is that >>> the case? >>>>>> >>>>>> Sent from my iPhone >>>>>> >>>>>>> On 2015/08/26, at 8:37, Nicholas Duane <nic...@msn.com> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 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 >>>>>>> >>>>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: log4j-user-unsubscr...@logging.apache.org >>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: log4j-user-h...@logging.apache.org >>>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: log4j-user-unsubscr...@logging.apache.org >>>> For additional commands, e-mail: log4j-user-h...@logging.apache.org >>>> >>> >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> 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 > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: log4j-user-unsubscr...@logging.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: log4j-user-h...@logging.apache.org
