Source field in NoSQLAppender

We have a wrapper for log4j 2 APIs. So instead of directly calling the function we call custom class to do the logging. The problem with this aproach is the 'source' field stored in database has details of the custom log class and not the class which is calling it i.e all my fileName , linenumber

Question - RollingFileAppender creates empty files

Hello, I'm using log4j2 RollingFileAppenders to log events of a complex system. My problem is that empty log files are created for every appender even if the given subsystem has nothing to write to them. Is there any way to restrict the number of files using just the XML configuration file?

Re: Question - RollingFileAppender creates empty files

Hi, Can you provide your configuration file? Remko On Wed, Sep 16, 2015 at 11:23 PM, Csilla Fabian wrote: > Hello, > > I'm using log4j2 RollingFileAppenders to log events of a complex system. > My problem is that empty log files are created for every appender even if >

Re: Question - RollingFileAppender creates empty files

The files are created as soon as the output stream is opened. This happens when the Appender starts. I’d have to see your configuration to understand why you would be getting multiple files though. Ralph > On Sep 16, 2015, at 7:23 AM, Csilla Fabian wrote: > > Hello, >

RE: markers

I was hoping on getting some replies to my last message as I'm trying to figure out the best way to utilize the existing logging frameworks, log4j(2) and log4net in our case, to log our business events and ensure the business events flow to the correct destination. I think the two main

Why is log4net not more similar to log4j(2)?

Sending to both the log4j and log4net mailing lists. I'm curious why log4net is not more similar to log4j(2)? Is it because there is less development work being done on log4net and log4j had significant changes in the 2.0 version? Any chance log4net might become more of a "port" of log4j(2)

Re: markers

At first I was going to strongly recommend against using a custom level called BUSINESS. Custom levels have been a problem in the past at my work (IMO). Markers are really a perfect fit for this use-case. That got me to thinking about my previous idea on this of adding more levels to Log4j. Please

Re: Source field in NoSQLAppender

Wait a sec, you should look into the ExtenderLogger APIs! For example: org.apache.logging.log4j.spi.ExtendedLogger.logIfEnabled(String, Level, Marker, String, Throwable) Where you can pass in the FQCN of your logger class. That should do it. Gary On Wed, Sep 16, 2015 at 1:25 PM, Gary Gregory

Re: Source field in NoSQLAppender

It sounds like you would need to specify how many stack frames to skip before coming out of your wrapper class. This could be done by adding a 'skip' parameter to the 'location' attribute, like '%location{skip=2}' or something like that. FYI:

RE: markers

First of all let me say that I'm not trying to keep posing the same question until you guys agree with me. I'm just trying to make sure I've done my due diligence to root out all possible options so that I can pick the one which ends up working out the best for our needs. That being said,

RE: Why is log4net not more similar to log4j(2)?

I was debating offering to help. Not that I wouldn't be interested, just don't know how much time I could commit. Also, not sure I would be interested in "patching" log4net. In my mind the best approach would be to port log4j2. I would like the two to be very similar, down to the level

RE: Why is log4net not more similar to log4j(2)?

Maybe helpful:http://codecall.net/2014/03/27/best-tools-to-convert-java-to-c-source-code/ Gary Original message From: Nicholas Duane Date: 09/16/2015 17:58 (GMT-08:00) To: Log4J Users List Cc: Log4NET User

Re: Why is log4net not more similar to log4j(2)?

Porting Log4j 2 would be a *huge* job. Would you use a translator of some kind? Gary On Wed, Sep 16, 2015 at 3:41 PM, Nicholas Duane wrote: > I was debating offering to help. Not that I wouldn't be interested, just > don't know how much time I could commit. Also, not sure I

Re: markers

I actually haven’t looked at log4net, but since it predates Log4j 2 I would imagine it is missing the new features we added. Using your own custom messages is certainly a viable approach. But there again, logging Message objects instead of simple strings is something that was introduced by

RE: Why is log4net not more similar to log4j(2)?

Not sure. I was going to ask what a guess on the effort might be. I wasn't expecting *huge*. And I guess *huge* is still your guess if we only consider the "core" and maybe a single file appender just as a starting point? Thanks, Nick Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2015 15:49:22 -0700 Subject: Re: Why

Re: Why is log4net not more similar to log4j(2)?

It's not so much that one appender is more code than another. It's all the infrastructure underneath it all... Gary On Wed, Sep 16, 2015 at 5:06 PM, Nicholas Duane wrote: > Not sure. I was going to ask what a guess on the effort might be. I > wasn't expecting *huge*. And I

RE: Why is log4net not more similar to log4j(2)?

I was thinking maybe the sheer number of appenders/filters would make it a lot of effort to port the entire list and just porting the core infrastructure and maybe one appender just so that you could see something working might something, while a large effort, wouldn't be huge. But I guess

Re: Why is log4net not more similar to log4j(2)?

Well, it might be huge but I’m guessing it would be a lot of fun! Ralph > On Sep 16, 2015, at 5:06 PM, Nicholas Duane wrote: > > Not sure. I was going to ask what a guess on the effort might be. I wasn't > expecting *huge*. And I guess *huge* is still your guess if we only