I am not sure why Remko advised you to do it this way. The first filter will
deny Warn, error and fatal making the next two filters redundant. The third
filter will accept events at level info and deny trace and debug. So the end
result is the only events that will get logged will be those at
I see. I didn't know you could nest filters inside an AppenderRef. Nice!
Sent from my iPhone
On 2015/08/26, at 12:21, Ralph Goers ralph.go...@dslextreme.com wrote:
If you only want info events then you should do
Filters
ThresholdFilter level=“warn” onMatch=“DENY” onMisMatch=“NEUTRAL”/
On Tue, Aug 25, 2015 at 7:59 PM, Remko Popma remko.po...@gmail.com wrote:
How are users currently able to set the log level to OFF? Do they modify
the config?
Right, isn't the only way to enforce this is to override the config file
programatically?
Gary
Sent from my iPhone
On
I've got to say that I use MarkerFilters all the time, but I still need to
refresh my brain when I've not used them in a while.
If providing a LevelRangeFilter would be less confusing, then perhaps we
should write one.
Gary
On Tue, Aug 25, 2015 at 7:09 PM, Nicholas Duane nic...@msn.com wrote:
I just did.
Ralph
On Aug 25, 2015, at 9:12 PM, Nicholas Duane nic...@msn.com wrote:
That's exactly the use case I'm looking for. I'll have to study it some
more. Can you give me an example which filters out everything but INFO?
Thanks,Nick
Original message
From:
That's exactly the use case I'm looking for. I'll have to study it some more.
Can you give me an example which filters out everything but INFO?
Thanks,Nick
Original message
From: Remko Popma remko.po...@gmail.com
Date: 08/25/2015 9:06 PM (GMT-07:00)
To: Log4J Users List
It just dawned on me that my solution of redefining OFF to the INFO level only
addresses the case of someone setting the level to OFF. Someone could set the
level to ERROR.
As I mentioned, what I'm trying to do is enforce, via configuration only, not
being able to turn of logging of INFO and
How are users currently able to set the log level to OFF? Do they modify the
config?
Sent from my iPhone
On 2015/08/26, at 11:35, Nicholas Duane nic...@msn.com wrote:
It just dawned on me that my solution of redefining OFF to the INFO level
only addresses the case of someone setting the
If you only want info events then you should do
Filters
ThresholdFilter level=“warn” onMatch=“DENY” onMisMatch=“NEUTRAL”/
ThresholdFilter level=“info” onMatch=“ACCEPT” onMisMatch=“DENY”/
/Filters
If you want to illustrate the other use case you would need a configuration like
root
The StackOverflow link was an answer to the question how to send _only_ INFO
level events to an appender.
I thought it would illustrate how filters combinations could be used to achieve
the original request: I might want all DEBUG, TRACE and VERBOSE events going
to one appender. All INFO,
Right, the hard part is explaining how to use it, combine it, and how put all
the puzzle pieces together.
Gary
Original message
From: Ralph Goers ralph.go...@dslextreme.com
Date: 08/25/2015 21:28 (GMT-08:00)
To: Log4J Users List log4j-user@logging.apache.org
Subject: Re:
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:
I believe two threshold filters inside a composite filter should should work
provided you have the onMatch and onMismatch set appropriately.
Ralph
On Aug 25, 2015, at 12:36 PM, Nicholas Duane nic...@msn.com wrote:
I'm looking for a range filter in log4j2. I see there is on in log4net and
I'm looking for a range filter in log4j2. I see there is on in log4net and it
appears there was one written by someone for log4j 1. Just wondering if there
is something 'out of the box' in log4j2 that will accomplish the same? I was
wondering whether this could be accomplished with the
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
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
On Tue, Aug 25, 2015 at 4:52 PM, Nicholas Duane nic...@msn.com wrote:
Basically I need the same functionality of the LevelRangeFilter in
log4net, but of course in log4j2.
Patches welcome is something I often say ;-)
Gary
Thanks,
Nick
From: nic...@msn.com
To:
Hm... maybe we need
a org.apache.logging.log4j.Level.isInRange(Level, Level) method to help
implement this filter...
Gary
On Tue, Aug 25, 2015 at 5:02 PM, Gary Gregory garydgreg...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Tue, Aug 25, 2015 at 4:52 PM, Nicholas Duane nic...@msn.com wrote:
Basically I need the
You misread the comment. The commentor basically told me the answer works with
a minor change, and that he would mark the question as done if I would edit
my answer (which I did).
So the answer works and seems to apply to your use case, no? The question is if
it also works with custom
From the manual - This filter returns the onMatch result if the level in the
LogEvent is the same or more specific than the configured level and the
onMismatch value otherwise.”
So if you have
Filters
ThresholdFilter level=“DEBUG” onMatch=“NEUTRAL” onMisMatch=“DENY”
ThresholdFilter
I should also point out that if you look at the documentation you will see that
the default value for onMisMatch is “Deny”. So your first filter tests the log
level and no matter what the level is it will discard the event.
Ralph
On Aug 25, 2015, at 2:04 PM, Nicholas Duane nic...@msn.com
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
Can you try something similar to this
http://stackoverflow.com/questions/24695133/log4j2-filter-particular-level-in-apender/24697002#24697002
and see if that works with custom levels as well?
On Wed, Aug 26, 2015 at 6:04 AM, Nicholas Duane nic...@msn.com wrote:
I've tried a couple different
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
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
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.
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
Thanks. I checked out the link. It seems they were trying to do something
similar to me. I see the last comment on that is that it doesn't work.
There is another post afterwards which uses the ThresholdFilter. However the
ThresholdFilter won't work as that allows, or denys, all levels
Basically I need the same functionality of the LevelRangeFilter in log4net, but
of course in log4j2.
Thanks,
Nick
From: nic...@msn.com
To: log4j-user@logging.apache.org
Subject: RE: range filter?
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 2015 19:49:48 -0400
Thanks. I checked out the link. It seems they were
I added a test
called org.apache.logging.log4j.core.CustomLevelsOverrideTest in Git master.
It shows that overriding a standard level's int value does not work.
Gary
On Tue, Aug 25, 2015 at 4:37 PM, Nicholas Duane nic...@msn.com wrote:
No. Redefining existing levels is to help ensure we have
I've tried a couple different combinations and so far no luck. Here's
the current configuration I tested with which doesn't work:
File ...
PatternLayout
...
/PatternLayout
Filters
ThresholdFilter level=INFO onMatch=DENY/
ThresholdFilter level=DEBUG onMatch=ACCEPT/
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
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,
By the way, let me say that I'm surprisingly delighted by the quickness of
responses and level of interest in solving these issues. THANK YOU. I guess
after posting a few messages on the log4net mailing list and getting no
responses I wasn't too hopeful about getting responses to my log4j
Maybe. However, I'm having a hard time following what the configuration is
saying and thus have no idea what I would need to put in the configuration.
Here is a snippet from that post:
!-- Now deny warn, error and fatal messages --
ThresholdFilter level=warn
35 matches
Mail list logo
