I did look a bit into syslog. That appeared to be the defacto standard for
logging, though it also seems that many just write to their own log files. The
other constraint we had was working in a PaaS environment and thus writing to
local disk might not be possible. While I'm not sure whether we're going to be
running in a PaaS environment, that's what was in the back of our minds as we
were developing the solution. We wrote a unix domain socket appender which we
use to send events to a daemon we have running. This daemon buffers events in
memory and when the buffer is full it compresses it and sends it via http to
one of our endpoints.
From: Mikael Ståldal <mikael.stal...@magine.com>
Sent: Tuesday, October 18, 2016 10:06 AM
To: Log4J Users List
Subject: Re: porting log4j2 to .NET
...or a standardized non-binary format (like GELF, JSON based).
On Tue, Oct 18, 2016 at 3:58 PM, Matt Sicker <boa...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Using syslog is a pretty standard way to collect logs from all sorts of
> programs and goes back decades. There has been an update to the syslog
> format in RFC 5424 which fleshes it out a bunch.
> Then there are programs like Logstash and Flume which can be used in a more
> platform-agnostic manner to collect logs from different applications.
> Really, when it comes down to it, the most standard way you can log
> everything regardless of programming language is to use log files or some
> sort of network appender using a standardized binary format.
> On 18 October 2016 at 08:53, Nicholas Duane <nic...@msn.com> wrote:
> > I guess platform is vague. Maybe I should have said language agnostic.
> > It would be nice to have a single logging architecture/design run on
> > .NET, Java, etc. Or at least it seems like a nice feature to me. I
> > assume there are many enterprises out there that have applications
> > on different OS's and languages. If I'm trying to pick a logging
> > to use and I find a popular one which is capable and runs similarly
> > the OS's and languages then that's a big plus in my mind.
> > Thanks,
> > Nick
> > ________________________________
> > From: Mikael Ståldal <mikael.stal...@magine.com>
> > Sent: Tuesday, October 18, 2016 2:52 AM
> > To: Log4J Users List
> > Subject: Re: porting log4j2 to .NET
> > Just to make things clear, Log4j is a logging framework for the JVM
> > platform, and it is agnostic to the underlying OS. It it well tested on
> > least) both Linux and Windows.
> > On Tue, Oct 18, 2016 at 2:33 AM, Nicholas Duane <nic...@msn.com> wrote:
> > > Figured I would send this question out to the log4j side. I have
> > > had some email exchanges with the log4net mailing list regarding
> > > log4j2 to .NET. My suggestion was that the apache logging framework
> be a
> > > single architecture design which is platform agnostic and then teams
> > which
> > > port to the different platforms. It seems log4net was a port of log4j
> > and
> > > may be going off in its own direction from that initial port. My
> > viewpoint
> > > is that's a bad idea as one of the benefits I saw was that log4net was
> > > similar to log4j2 and we're looking for logging frameworks for our
> > > enterprise. We have applications on both Windows/.NET and Linux/Java
> > > having a logging framework for Windows/.NET which is similar to a
> > > framework for Linux/Java was a big plus.
> > >
> > >
> > > While I have no doubt the effort to port log4j2 to .NET is
> > > it would be a port and thus I'm not spending time figuring out design
> > > algorithms. Would anyone want to venture a guess at what that effort
> > might
> > > be?
> > >
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > >
> > > Nick
> > >
> > --
> > [image: MagineTV]
> > *Mikael Ståldal*
> > Senior software developer
> > *Magine TV*
> > mikael.stal...@magine.com
> > Grev Turegatan 3 | 114 46 Stockholm, Sweden |
> > www.magine.com<<http://www.magine.com<>
> > http://www.magine.com>
> > [https://de.magine.com/content/uploads/2016/09/magine_global_social.png
> > http://www.magine.com/>
> > TV online with Magine TV<http://www.magine.com/>
> > www.magine.com<http://www.magine.com>
> > Watch the TV you love, on any device, anywhere in Germany and Sweden and
> > find out more about our global OTT B2B solutions. Get started today.
> > Privileged and/or Confidential Information may be contained in this
> > message. If you are not the addressee indicated in this message
> > (or responsible for delivery of the message to such a person), you may
> > copy or deliver this message to anyone. In such case,
> > you should destroy this message and kindly notify the sender by reply
> > email.
> Matt Sicker <boa...@gmail.com>
Senior software developer
Grev Turegatan 3 | 114 46 Stockholm, Sweden |
Privileged and/or Confidential Information may be contained in this
message. If you are not the addressee indicated in this message
(or responsible for delivery of the message to such a person), you may not
copy or deliver this message to anyone. In such case,
you should destroy this message and kindly notify the sender by reply