Re: approach for defining loggers

See below > On Sep 11, 2015, at 12:33 PM, Nicholas Duane wrote: > > I think it's great that you took the time and effort to put this together. > Hopefully it will help guide people in the correct direction as they work > through these issues. Hopefully this link is found

RE: approach for defining loggers

I think it's great that you took the time and effort to put this together. Hopefully it will help guide people in the correct direction as they work through these issues. Hopefully this link is found when they google 'log4j log levels' or 'log4j loggers' etc.. 1. While your level examples

Re: approach for defining loggers

> On Sep 11, 2015, at 3:50 PM, Gary Gregory wrote: > > > This updated text I hope will help: > > "No new loggers needed, just an additional parameter to your log call, > regardless of the level API used. > > Now, I can configure Log4j to log only events that contain

Re: approach for defining loggers

On Fri, Sep 11, 2015 at 4:23 PM, Ralph Goers wrote: > > > On Sep 11, 2015, at 3:50 PM, Gary Gregory > wrote: > > > > > > This updated text I hope will help: > > > > "No new loggers needed, just an additional parameter to your log call, > >

RE: approach for defining loggers

I am a bit confused now. Previously someone said that if we used markers the level used in the log statement would be irrelevant. However, based on this thread it looks like that's not the case. Can someone give a definitive answer on what determines whether an event makes it to an appender?