Or
Logger logger = LogManager.getLogger("Business");
...
logger.info("Hello");Gary On Tue, Sep 8, 2015 at 7:24 PM, Ralph Goers <ralph.go...@dslextreme.com> wrote: > Can you please clarify, “If we had some way to know an event is a business > event we wouldn’t need level”? I do not understand how you can code > logger.log(BUSINESS, msg) but you cannot code logger.info(BUSINESS, msg). > > Ralph > > > On Sep 8, 2015, at 6:09 PM, Nicholas Duane <nic...@msn.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > I looked over that stackoverflow post and I'm still not seeing a good > match as a way for us to log our business events. > > > > A business event I guess is an event which extends whatever schema we > come up with for a business event. While an instance of this schema could > be logged at any level, that really doesn't make sense in our scenario, > regardless of whether some marker was supplied. If we had some way to know > an event is a business event we wouldn't need level. We could of course > add some property to our schema which indicates the 'category' of the > event, 'business' being one such category. Instead we were thinking we > could just use level to indicate that an event is a business event. > > > > As I mentioned, we're looking to capture 'trace' level events to one > store, 'info' - 'fatal' level events to another store, and 'business' > events to yet another store. For 'trace' and 'info' - 'fatal' it seems > reasonable to filter on level within the appender to get those events to > the appropriate location. It seemed reasonable to do something similar for > 'business'. > > > > I also looked into the EventLogger but not sure that's appropriate. For > one we lose the granularity to control a specific piece of code from > generating business events. This is most likely a non-issue as I have > mentioned that we don't want to turn business logging off. The other is > that we lose the name of the logger as it would be the same for everyone. > Not sure this is that big a deal either as I guess you might be able to > capture component name, though I would rather distinguish using logger name. > > > > Thanks, > > Nick > > > >> From: ralph.go...@dslextreme.com > >> Subject: Re: approach for defining loggers > >> Date: Mon, 7 Sep 2015 20:39:11 -0700 > >> To: log4j-user@logging.apache.org > >> > >> I still don’t understand why you don’t want to use Markers. They were > designed exactly for the use case you are describing. > >> > >> You might set retention policies for debug vs info, error and fatal, > but a BUSINESS marker could cross-cut them all. That is exactly why it is > NOT a level. IOW, it gives you a second dimension for filtering. Ceki > invented Markers when he created SLF4J. For his point of view see > http://stackoverflow.com/questions/16813032/what-is-markers-in-java-logging-frameworks-and-that-is-a-reason-to-use-them > < > http://stackoverflow.com/questions/16813032/what-is-markers-in-java-logging-frameworks-and-that-is-a-reason-to-use-them > >. > >> > >> Ralph > >> > >> > >> > >> > >>> On Sep 7, 2015, at 5:54 PM, Nicholas Duane <nic...@msn.com> wrote: > >>> > >>> If I'm attempting to control all the logging from the configuration > and I don't know the complete set of loggers in my application as there > could be 100's or 1000's, wouldn't it be hard to separate events based on > loggers? It would seem much easier to separate events based on level. In > addition, level might be a more reasonable approach for separating. For > example, if I want to send all events to some big-data backend I might want > to separate out traces and debug from info to fatal as traces and debug are > most likely less important from a systems management aspect. My retention > period for traces and debug might be just a couple days. The retention > period for info to fatal could be 30 days. Business level might be 2 > years. Any system management notifications would probably be driven off of > info to fatal events and not trace and debug events, which is another > reason you might want to separate by level. > >>> > >>> Thanks, > >>> Nick > >>> > >>>> Subject: Re: approach for defining loggers > >>>> From: ralph.go...@dslextreme.com > >>>> Date: Mon, 31 Aug 2015 08:50:58 -0700 > >>>> To: log4j-user@logging.apache.org > >>>> > >>>> A logging “Level” is a level of importance. That is why there is a > hierarchy. If you want informational messages then you also would want > warnings and errors. > >>>> > >>>> “BUSINESS” does not convey the same meaning. Rather, it is some sort > of category, which is what Markers are for. > >>>> > >>>> Using the class name as the logger name is a convention. If you > really want the class name, method name or line number then you should be > specifying that you want those from the logging event, rather than the > logger name. Unless location information is disabled you always have > access to that information. > >>>> > >>>> In short, different loggers are used primarily as a way of grouping > sets of messages - for example all org.hibernate events can be routed to a > specific appender or turned off en masse. Levels are used to filter out > noise across a set of logging events. Markers are used to categorize > logging events by arbitrary attributes. > >>>> > >>>> Ralph > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>> On Aug 31, 2015, at 8:10 AM, Nicholas Duane <nic...@msn.com> wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>> Thanks for the feedback. I will look into Markers and MDC. > >>>>> > >>>>> With respect to using a separate logger, it would seem I would lose > the information about what application code, eg. the class logger, is > sourcing the event. We would like to have this information. On top of > that, it seems odd, maybe to me only, that for this new level we have our > own logger. It seemed reasonable to me that this new event we want to > capture is just a new level. Just like a DEBUG event is different from an > INFO event. If I define a BUSINESS level why would that not follow the > same design as the current levels? You wouldn't suggest having different > loggers for TRACE DEBUG INFO WARN ERROR FATAL, would you? I think one of > the reasons someone on our side is suggesting I have separate loggers is > that they think the overhead of filtering at the appender is going to have > a noticeable impact. Our plan, at least the one I have now in my head, is > that we'll have some number of appenders in the root. We'll then filter x > < INFO events to a tracing appender, INFO <= x <= FATAL to a logging > appender, and our custom level will go to another appender. Thoughts? > >>>>> > >>>>> Thanks, > >>>>> Nick > >>>>> > >>>>>> Subject: Re: approach for defining loggers > >>>>>> From: ralph.go...@dslextreme.com > >>>>>> Date: Sat, 29 Aug 2015 20:59:36 -0700 > >>>>>> To: log4j-user@logging.apache.org > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> On Aug 29, 2015, at 7:44 PM, Nicholas Duane <nic...@msn.com> > wrote: > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> I'm curious if there is a prescribed approach to defining > loggers. Let me state what my assumption is. I assume that normally if > some piece of code wants to log events/messages that it should create a > logger for itself. I guess a reasonable name to use is the class name > itself. In terms of logger configuration I would expect that no loggers > are specified in the log4j configuration UNLESS is needs settings other > than the default. The root logger would specify the default settings, eg. > level and appenders. If some piece of code tied to a logger needs to > enable tracing in order to debug an issue then you would add that logger to > the configuration and set the level less specific for that logger. Is this > a typical and reasonable approach? > >>>>>> > >>>>>> What you describe here is the common convention. It is a reasonable > approach. > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> I asked because we have the need for a new type of event. To have > this event flow to where we want it to flow the plan is to have a custom > level and have all events at that level captured by a specific appender. > My assumption was that for existing applications we'd just need to add our > appender to the root and add our custom level. The app would need to be > modified to log our new event at the custom level. However, someone > suggested that we could also create a separate logger for this event. My > thinking is that while we don't ever want to turn off logging of this > event, loggers represent "event sources", e.g the code raising the events > and thus having multiple different pieces of code use the same logger > wouldn't allow you to turn on/off logging from those different sections of > code independently. I think the current configuration includes all the > loggers. Normally I would expect there to be many, on the order of 10's or > 100's, loggers within an application. However, in the case I was given > there were only a handful because I think this handful is shared. So as I > mentioned, this doesn't sound like an ideal design as you have less > granularity on what you can turn on/off. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> You have a few options. Using a CustomLevel would not be the option > I would choose. Creating a custom Logger will certainly work and makes > routing the message to the appropriate appender rather easy. Another > approach is to use Markers. Markers are somewhat hierarchical so you can > use them for a variety of purposes. If you look at how Log4j handles event > logging it actually does both - it specifies EventLogger as the name of the > logger to use and it uses Markers to identify the kind of event. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> A third option is to use the MDC or Logger properties. If you do > that then you can have information included in the actual logging event > that can affect how it is routed. I also built a system that uses the > RFC5424 format so that the event could have lots of key/value pairs to > identify the events. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Unfortunately, without knowing more details I don’t know that I can > give you a better idea on how I would implement it. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Ralph > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > >>>>>> 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 > >>>> > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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
