I might be wrong but I think you'll find that for your configuration you actually have three loggers for foo.bar:
root => logging to FileAppender at the DEBUG level foo => logging nowhere foo.bar => logging to EventLogAppender at the WARN level so in this case WARNs will go to two places. You might try to set: additivity="false" on your foo.bar logger to prevent it from inheriting appenders from both foo and root. Again I might be wrong, but that's how additivity works as I understand it. Wayne M. Bradney Application Architect, Derivatives & Structured Products Wall Street Systems 30 Broad Street, 24th Floor, New York, NY 10004 USA Tel: +1 (212) 809 7200 Fax: +1 (212) 809 7578 Visit our website at http://www.wallstreetsystems.com This transmission may be a privileged or confidential communication. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you have received this transmission in error; any review, dissemination, distribution or copying of this transmission is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by reply or by telephone (call us at +1-212-809-7200) and immediately delete this message and all its attachments. -----Original Message----- From: Shaun Lipscombe [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, June 29, 2006 12:44 PM To: Log4NET User Subject: Re: Config not honoring appender * Dean Fiala wrote: > Your root logger logs to the file appender, and since all log events go to > to the root logger, it will write to both places. It is possible to only > have the logger write to the specified log and not the root logger, but that > is not something I have wrapped my head around yet. I had actually considered that this may be the case although I've not read anything about it in the documentation. I was thinking that maybe instead of the Appender overriding the other appender it is infact appended (no pun intended ;-) thus giving two appenders for the logger foo.bar. Other options are overridden like <level> etc. I guess <appender-ref>'s are accumulated (via inheritance or otherwise). Or am I barking up the wrong XML-tree (couldn't resist that one I'm afraid).
