You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to log4j-user@logging.apache.org by Nicholas Duane <ni...@msn.com> on 2016/10/17 23:27:23 UTC
Re: approach for defining loggers
Sorry to revive this old thread. However, we're in the process of adding support for other "categories" of events and thus I wanted to first take a step back and try to ensure we're not convoluting things.
There was a requirement to log a "compliance" event under certain conditions. We did not want to write our own logging framework and instead decided to use existing off-the-shelf logging frameworks. We have applications on both Linux/Java, Windows/.NET and Windows/Java. Initially we chose log4net for Windows/.NET and log4j2 for Windows/Java and Linux/Java. For these logging frameworks we wrote artifacts, appenders basically, to help facilitate getting these events to our system. By the way, our system will get the events centrally, possibly put them into a relational database and also hand them off to another system which will get them eventually to an HDFS backend. We also exposed methods for creating this compliance event. The compliance event is basically a map. We chose a map so that the event could also be extended by the application team in case they needed to add additional properties which made sense for them.
We chose to create a custom level for this "compliance" event such that we could filter out only these events and get them into our system. The configuration example we created had our custom unix domain socket appender added to the root logger. It also contained a filter which filtered out any events that weren't compliance events. The level we chose for "compliance" was less critical than off and more critical than fatal as we wanted to ensure that as long as logging wasn't turned off altogether our events would get logged.
I want to go over a few suggestions that were made and explain why I didn't make use of those suggestions.
1. Since our "compliance" level didn't fit within the "vernacular" of the existing levels we should not define this custom level. Instead we should look at using markers.
I am not that familiar with markers but did look into them when they were suggested. While I don't have anything against markers in general there were some downsides as I saw it.
a. Markers are not available, as far as I know, in log4net so we'd still have to figure out something there.
b. A bigger problem, at least I thought it was a bigger problem, was that there would be confusion about what level to log the event at. I would certainly not want to give an example as follows:
logger.debug(COMPLIANCE_MARKER, evnt);
or
logger.info(COMPLIANCE_MARKER, evnt);
or
logger.error(COMPLIANCE_MARKER, evnt);
...
That just screams confusion to me.
2. Use a dedicated logger to log all compliance events.
There were, as far as I could tell, a couple problems with this approach also.
a. If everyone is using a single "well known" logger to log a specific event category then I lose the logger "context" of who's logging the event. As it stands now we're copying the logger name into a property we call "eventSource".
b. You cannot turn on/off logging for a specific set of code. If it turns out that we have some errant code which is using this well known logger then we can't just turn off that code from logging as turning off the well know logger would turn it off for everyone using it.
I did look into the EventLogger and initially that seemed promising as I guess it logs any event you give it at the "all" level. However, as a well known logger it suffers from the same issues above.
Now we're looking to add Business events. My initial thinking is that I can do the same thing we did before. Add an additional custom level called "Business" and expose methods for creating a business event. Though unlike the compliance event, the application teams would be defining the schema more so than our framework team. Thus any method we expose would just be used as a starting point for setting the common properties. You would use another instance of our unix domain socket appender for these business events and forward them to a different location as business events would most likely have a different retention period than compliance events. Plus you might also want them in a different store as you may never need to query for both categories of events and thus no need to query against a larger set of data.
In addition we're planning to capture centrally what we refer to as diagnostic events: error, info, warn, debug, trace, etc. However, we may need to separate these out into two different categories: critical-diagnostic and noncritical-diagnostic. The reason is that we don't want the potential of a critical diagnostic event, let's say an error, queued up behind potentially thousands of non-critical diagnostic events. So you see, the category also defines aspects on how we handle events at the source. We separate at the source based on category as it seems a reasonable place to do so. Also, you may want different flush times for different categories. We have a process which buffers, compresses and sends events centrally so we have the notion of flush time. The buffers are flushed when they become full or the flush time elapses. Errors, since they are more critical in monitoring systems, we'll most likely want to flush more often than say debug and trace events.
Sorry for the long winded explanation. Initially I was thinking that when we create an event we'd set its category. However, now I'm thinking the category should be set by the act of logging the event at a level. In some cases we have a 1:1 mapping from level to category, eg. compliance level -> compliance category. In some cases we have a many:1 mapping from level to category, eg. error, info, warn -> critical-diagnostic.
We could also just define a single custom level, say "always_on", or something like that. Then we provide some helper method to log our "new" event categories (eg. business and compliance) at this level and have the user specify the category, I guess similar to a marker.
logEvent(Logger logger, String category, object evnt);
I guess it's similar to the EventLogger except that we're not using a single well known logger and thus don't have the downsides of that which I pointed out earlier.
Any thoughts/suggestions would be appreciated.
Thanks,
Nick
________________________________
From: Mikael Ståldal <mi...@magine.com>
Sent: Wednesday, September 9, 2015 3:47 AM
To: Log4J Users List
Subject: Re: approach for defining loggers
Then perhaps you should create your own facade for doing business event
logging, which could then forward them to Log4j in an appropriate way.
On Wed, Sep 9, 2015 at 4:49 AM, Nicholas Duane <ni...@msn.com> wrote:
> I was just about to reply to your previous email about using a single
> "business" logger, or some hierarchy of business loggers, to log business
> events and say that we might go that route. However, now that you brought
> up the post from Ralph, which I just replied to, I'm thinking a logger
> won't work either for the same reason I listed in my reply to Ralph's post.
>
> You could do:
>
> logger.info("Hello");
> logger.fatal("Hello");
> logger.error("Hello");
> ...
>
> It's confusing as there are n ways to log a business event that way and
> they will all do the same thing. Which one should a developer choose.
> Should I say pick any one, it doesn't matter?
>
> Thanks,
> Nick
>
> > Date: Tue, 8 Sep 2015 19:28:21 -0700
> > Subject: Re: approach for defining loggers
> > From: garydgregory@gmail.com
> > To: log4j-user@logging.apache.org
> >
> > Or
> > Logger logger = LogManager.getLogger("Business");
> > ...
> > logger.info("Hello");
> >
> > Gary
> >
> > On Tue, Sep 8, 2015 at 7:24 PM, Ralph Goers <ra...@dslextreme.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Can you please clarify, “If we had some way to know an event is a
> business
> > > event we wouldn’t need level”? I do not understand how you can code
> > > logger.log(BUSINESS, msg) but you cannot code logger.info(BUSINESS,
> msg).
> > >
> > > Ralph
> > >
> > > > On Sep 8, 2015, at 6:09 PM, Nicholas Duane <ni...@msn.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > I looked over that stackoverflow post and I'm still not seeing a good
> > > match as a way for us to log our business events.
> > > >
> > > > A business event I guess is an event which extends whatever schema we
> > > come up with for a business event. While an instance of this schema
> could
> > > be logged at any level, that really doesn't make sense in our scenario,
> > > regardless of whether some marker was supplied. If we had some way to
> know
> > > an event is a business event we wouldn't need level. We could of
> course
> > > add some property to our schema which indicates the 'category' of the
> > > event, 'business' being one such category. Instead we were thinking we
> > > could just use level to indicate that an event is a business event.
> > > >
> > > > As I mentioned, we're looking to capture 'trace' level events to one
> > > store, 'info' - 'fatal' level events to another store, and 'business'
> > > events to yet another store. For 'trace' and 'info' - 'fatal' it seems
> > > reasonable to filter on level within the appender to get those events
> to
> > > the appropriate location. It seemed reasonable to do something
> similar for
> > > 'business'.
> > > >
> > > > I also looked into the EventLogger but not sure that's appropriate.
> For
> > > one we lose the granularity to control a specific piece of code from
> > > generating business events. This is most likely a non-issue as I have
> > > mentioned that we don't want to turn business logging off. The other
> is
> > > that we lose the name of the logger as it would be the same for
> everyone.
> > > Not sure this is that big a deal either as I guess you might be able to
> > > capture component name, though I would rather distinguish using logger
> name.
> > > >
> > > > Thanks,
> > > > Nick
> > > >
> > > >> From: ralph.goers@dslextreme.com
> > > >> Subject: Re: approach for defining loggers
> > > >> Date: Mon, 7 Sep 2015 20:39:11 -0700
> > > >> To: log4j-user@logging.apache.org
> > > >>
> > > >> I still don’t understand why you don’t want to use Markers. They
> were
> > > designed exactly for the use case you are describing.
> > > >>
> > > >> You might set retention policies for debug vs info, error and fatal,
> > > but a BUSINESS marker could cross-cut them all. That is exactly why
> it is
> > > NOT a level. IOW, it gives you a second dimension for filtering. Ceki
> > > invented Markers when he created SLF4J. For his point of view see
> > >
> http://stackoverflow.com/questions/16813032/what-is-markers-in-java-logging-frameworks-and-that-is-a-reason-to-use-them
[http://cdn.sstatic.net/Sites/stackoverflow/img/apple-touch-icon@2.png?v=73d79a89bded&a]<http://stackoverflow.com/questions/16813032/what-is-markers-in-java-logging-frameworks-and-that-is-a-reason-to-use-them>
What is markers in Java Logging frameworks and that is a ...<http://stackoverflow.com/questions/16813032/what-is-markers-in-java-logging-frameworks-and-that-is-a-reason-to-use-them>
stackoverflow.com
This is a rehashed version my answer to the question "Best practices for using Markers in SLF4J/Logback". Markers can be used to color or mark a single log statement.
> > > <
> > >
> http://stackoverflow.com/questions/16813032/what-is-markers-in-java-logging-frameworks-and-that-is-a-reason-to-use-them
[http://cdn.sstatic.net/Sites/stackoverflow/img/apple-touch-icon@2.png?v=73d79a89bded&a]<http://stackoverflow.com/questions/16813032/what-is-markers-in-java-logging-frameworks-and-that-is-a-reason-to-use-them>
What is markers in Java Logging frameworks and that is a ...<http://stackoverflow.com/questions/16813032/what-is-markers-in-java-logging-frameworks-and-that-is-a-reason-to-use-them>
stackoverflow.com
This is a rehashed version my answer to the question "Best practices for using Markers in SLF4J/Logback". Markers can be used to color or mark a single log statement.
> > > >.
> > > >>
> > > >> Ralph
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>> On Sep 7, 2015, at 5:54 PM, Nicholas Duane <ni...@msn.com> wrote:
> > > >>>
> > > >>> If I'm attempting to control all the logging from the configuration
> > > and I don't know the complete set of loggers in my application as there
> > > could be 100's or 1000's, wouldn't it be hard to separate events based
> on
> > > loggers? It would seem much easier to separate events based on
> level. In
> > > addition, level might be a more reasonable approach for separating.
> For
> > > example, if I want to send all events to some big-data backend I might
> want
> > > to separate out traces and debug from info to fatal as traces and
> debug are
> > > most likely less important from a systems management aspect. My
> retention
> > > period for traces and debug might be just a couple days. The retention
> > > period for info to fatal could be 30 days. Business level might be 2
> > > years. Any system management notifications would probably be driven
> off of
> > > info to fatal events and not trace and debug events, which is another
> > > reason you might want to separate by level.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Thanks,
> > > >>> Nick
> > > >>>
> > > >>>> Subject: Re: approach for defining loggers
> > > >>>> From: ralph.goers@dslextreme.com
> > > >>>> Date: Mon, 31 Aug 2015 08:50:58 -0700
> > > >>>> To: log4j-user@logging.apache.org
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> A logging “Level” is a level of importance. That is why there is a
> > > hierarchy. If you want informational messages then you also would want
> > > warnings and errors.
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> “BUSINESS” does not convey the same meaning. Rather, it is some
> sort
> > > of category, which is what Markers are for.
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> Using the class name as the logger name is a convention. If you
> > > really want the class name, method name or line number then you should
> be
> > > specifying that you want those from the logging event, rather than the
> > > logger name. Unless location information is disabled you always have
> > > access to that information.
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> In short, different loggers are used primarily as a way of
> grouping
> > > sets of messages - for example all org.hibernate events can be routed
> to a
> > > specific appender or turned off en masse. Levels are used to filter out
> > > noise across a set of logging events. Markers are used to categorize
> > > logging events by arbitrary attributes.
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> Ralph
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>> On Aug 31, 2015, at 8:10 AM, Nicholas Duane <ni...@msn.com>
> wrote:
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> Thanks for the feedback. I will look into Markers and MDC.
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> With respect to using a separate logger, it would seem I would
> lose
> > > the information about what application code, eg. the class logger, is
> > > sourcing the event. We would like to have this information. On top of
> > > that, it seems odd, maybe to me only, that for this new level we have
> our
> > > own logger. It seemed reasonable to me that this new event we want to
> > > capture is just a new level. Just like a DEBUG event is different
> from an
> > > INFO event. If I define a BUSINESS level why would that not follow the
> > > same design as the current levels? You wouldn't suggest having
> different
> > > loggers for TRACE DEBUG INFO WARN ERROR FATAL, would you? I think one
> of
> > > the reasons someone on our side is suggesting I have separate loggers
> is
> > > that they think the overhead of filtering at the appender is going to
> have
> > > a noticeable impact. Our plan, at least the one I have now in my
> head, is
> > > that we'll have some number of appenders in the root. We'll then
> filter x
> > > < INFO events to a tracing appender, INFO <= x <= FATAL to a logging
> > > appender, and our custom level will go to another appender. Thoughts?
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> Thanks,
> > > >>>>> Nick
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>>> Subject: Re: approach for defining loggers
> > > >>>>>> From: ralph.goers@dslextreme.com
> > > >>>>>> Date: Sat, 29 Aug 2015 20:59:36 -0700
> > > >>>>>> To: log4j-user@logging.apache.org
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>> On Aug 29, 2015, at 7:44 PM, Nicholas Duane <ni...@msn.com>
> > > wrote:
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>> I'm curious if there is a prescribed approach to defining
> > > loggers. Let me state what my assumption is. I assume that normally
> if
> > > some piece of code wants to log events/messages that it should create a
> > > logger for itself. I guess a reasonable name to use is the class name
> > > itself. In terms of logger configuration I would expect that no
> loggers
> > > are specified in the log4j configuration UNLESS is needs settings other
> > > than the default. The root logger would specify the default settings,
> eg.
> > > level and appenders. If some piece of code tied to a logger needs to
> > > enable tracing in order to debug an issue then you would add that
> logger to
> > > the configuration and set the level less specific for that logger. Is
> this
> > > a typical and reasonable approach?
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>> What you describe here is the common convention. It is a
> reasonable
> > > approach.
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>> I asked because we have the need for a new type of event. To
> have
> > > this event flow to where we want it to flow the plan is to have a
> custom
> > > level and have all events at that level captured by a specific
> appender.
> > > My assumption was that for existing applications we'd just need to add
> our
> > > appender to the root and add our custom level. The app would need to
> be
> > > modified to log our new event at the custom level. However, someone
> > > suggested that we could also create a separate logger for this event.
> My
> > > thinking is that while we don't ever want to turn off logging of this
> > > event, loggers represent "event sources", e.g the code raising the
> events
> > > and thus having multiple different pieces of code use the same logger
> > > wouldn't allow you to turn on/off logging from those different
> sections of
> > > code independently. I think the current configuration includes all the
> > > loggers. Normally I would expect there to be many, on the order of
> 10's or
> > > 100's, loggers within an application. However, in the case I was given
> > > there were only a handful because I think this handful is shared. So
> as I
> > > mentioned, this doesn't sound like an ideal design as you have less
> > > granularity on what you can turn on/off.
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>> You have a few options. Using a CustomLevel would not be the
> option
> > > I would choose. Creating a custom Logger will certainly work and makes
> > > routing the message to the appropriate appender rather easy. Another
> > > approach is to use Markers. Markers are somewhat hierarchical so you
> can
> > > use them for a variety of purposes. If you look at how Log4j handles
> event
> > > logging it actually does both - it specifies EventLogger as the name
> of the
> > > logger to use and it uses Markers to identify the kind of event.
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>> A third option is to use the MDC or Logger properties. If you do
> > > that then you can have information included in the actual logging event
> > > that can affect how it is routed. I also built a system that uses the
> > > RFC5424 format so that the event could have lots of key/value pairs to
> > > identify the events.
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>> Unfortunately, without knowing more details I don’t know that I
> can
> > > give you a better idea on how I would implement it.
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>> Ralph
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>
> > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > >>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> log4j-user-unsubscribe@logging.apache.org
> > > >>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail:
> log4j-user-help@logging.apache.org
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > >>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: log4j-user-unsubscribe@logging.apache.org
> > > >>>> For additional commands, e-mail:
> log4j-user-help@logging.apache.org
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: log4j-user-unsubscribe@logging.apache.org
> > > For additional commands, e-mail: log4j-user-help@logging.apache.org
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> > E-Mail: garydgregory@gmail.com | ggregory@apache.org
> > Java Persistence with Hibernate, Second Edition
> > <http://www.manning.com/bauer3/>
> > JUnit in Action, Second Edition <http://www.manning.com/tahchiev/>
> > Spring Batch in Action <http://www.manning.com/templier/>
> > Blog: http://garygregory.wordpress.com
[https://s0.wp.com/i/blank.jpg]<http://garygregory.wordpress.com/>
Gary Gregory<http://garygregory.wordpress.com/>
garygregory.wordpress.com
Software construction, the web, and other techs
> > Home: http://garygregory.com/
Gary Gregory<http://garygregory.com/>
garygregory.com
Rocket | Seagull . I am a Software Architect for Seagull Software, a division of Rocket Software. Rocket Seagull specializes in tools and expertise to modernize ...
> > Tweet! http://twitter.com/GaryGregory
Gary Gregory (@GaryGregory) | Twitter<http://twitter.com/GaryGregory>
twitter.com
The latest Tweets from Gary Gregory (@GaryGregory). Principal Software Engineer, author: Java Persistence Hibernate https://t.co/3F8sYxc0oq, JUnit https://t.co/yXU1DqAMDG, Spring Batch https://t.co/XwoMNoBxh7. U.S.A.
>
>
--
[image: MagineTV]
*Mikael Ståldal*
Senior software developer
*Magine TV*
mikael.staldal@magine.com
Regeringsgatan 25 | 111 53 Stockholm, Sweden | 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
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 not
copy or deliver this message to anyone. In such case,
you should destroy this message and kindly notify the sender by reply
email.
Re: approach for defining loggers
Posted by Nicholas Duane <ni...@msn.com>.
I don't believe there is a severity to our compliance and business events. I could be wrong. If they had a severity it would certainly make them fit into the logging model more cleanly, but I just don't see it. And I just had this discussion with one of my colleagues. They were suggesting a result code for a business event. However, I pointed out that you'd only need that if you planned on logging failed business events, which is what he was thinking. Would you just log the failed business event or maybe the failed business event and an error event? Would a failure business event go into the business event store or the critical diagnostic (errors, warnings, info) store? We might have systems management people monitoring the critical diagnostics store to see what, if any, issues are currently happening thus just logging a failed business event might not set of any alarms. Though you could say that a failed business event it not a critical diagnostics events. Maybe it's just a business failure event. For instance, low balance. Though I probably see a low balance as yet another business event, not a failure of some other business event.
Just in case anyone is wondering I should probably make this clear, none of the logging we're doing is for auditing. We made it perfectly clear that events can be lost and thus you should not be using the logging frameworks and these events to audit. I have a clear definition for an audit, "if you fail to audit then you fail the application transaction".
I'm thinking our compliance and business events would have fit nicely into the EventLogger. As I mentioned, there are two issues I have with the event logger. Therefore I'm thinking that maybe we provide some methods to log these events to the All level in an attempt to implement something similar to the EventLogger but do it against a private logger. So something like this (pseudo code):
public class ExtensionMethods
{
public void LogEvent(Logger logger, object evnt);
or
public void LogEvent(Logger logger, String category, object evnt);
}
The other thing I'll need to make sure is that we have a way to distinguish between our different categories of events. I won't use Markers as they don't exist on log4net and we have a "category" property anyway so I think I can use that.
Thanks,
Nick
________________________________
From: Gary Gregory <ga...@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, October 17, 2016 10:46 PM
To: Log4J Users List
Subject: Re: approach for defining loggers
On Mon, Oct 17, 2016 at 4:27 PM, Nicholas Duane <ni...@msn.com> wrote:
> Sorry to revive this old thread. However, we're in the process of adding
> support for other "categories" of events and thus I wanted to first take a
> step back and try to ensure we're not convoluting things.
>
>
> There was a requirement to log a "compliance" event under certain
> conditions. We did not want to write our own logging framework and instead
> decided to use existing off-the-shelf logging frameworks. We have
> applications on both Linux/Java, Windows/.NET and Windows/Java. Initially
> we chose log4net for Windows/.NET and log4j2 for Windows/Java and
> Linux/Java. For these logging frameworks we wrote artifacts, appenders
> basically, to help facilitate getting these events to our system. By the
> way, our system will get the events centrally, possibly put them into a
> relational database and also hand them off to another system which will get
> them eventually to an HDFS backend. We also exposed methods for creating
> this compliance event. The compliance event is basically a map. We chose
> a map so that the event could also be extended by the application team in
> case they needed to add additional properties which made sense for them.
>
>
> We chose to create a custom level for this "compliance" event such that we
> could filter out only these events and get them into our system. The
> configuration example we created had our custom unix domain socket appender
> added to the root logger. It also contained a filter which filtered out
> any events that weren't compliance events. The level we chose for
> "compliance" was less critical than off and more critical than fatal as we
> wanted to ensure that as long as logging wasn't turned off altogether our
> events would get logged.
>
>
> I want to go over a few suggestions that were made and explain why I
> didn't make use of those suggestions.
>
>
> 1. Since our "compliance" level didn't fit within the "vernacular" of the
> existing levels we should not define this custom level. Instead we should
> look at using markers.
>
Yes, this is a use case for markers. The level should be used to note how
important is each compliance event.
>
> I am not that familiar with markers but did look into them when they were
> suggested. While I don't have anything against markers in general there
> were some downsides as I saw it.
>
>
> a. Markers are not available, as far as I know, in log4net so we'd still
> have to figure out something there.
>
Indeed, we really need a port of Log4j 2 to .NET.
>
> b. A bigger problem, at least I thought it was a bigger problem, was that
> there would be confusion about what level to log the event at. I would
> certainly not want to give an example as follows:
>
>
> logger.debug(COMPLIANCE_MARKER, evnt);
>
>
> or
>
>
> logger.info(COMPLIANCE_MARKER, evnt);
>
>
> or
>
>
> logger.error(COMPLIANCE_MARKER, evnt);
>
>
> ...
>
Think about: How important is this event? Are there different level of
importance to the audience?
>
>
> That just screams confusion to me.
>
>
> 2. Use a dedicated logger to log all compliance events.
>
>
> There were, as far as I could tell, a couple problems with this approach
> also.
>
>
> a. If everyone is using a single "well known" logger to log a specific
> event category then I lose the logger "context" of who's logging the
> event. As it stands now we're copying the logger name into a property we
> call "eventSource".
>
A practice is to use one logger per class. Another is to use a higher-level
logger to represent higher-level abstractions like a module.
>
>
> b. You cannot turn on/off logging for a specific set of code. If it turns
> out that we have some errant code which is using this well known logger
> then we can't just turn off that code from logging as turning off the well
> know logger would turn it off for everyone using it.
>
>
> I did look into the EventLogger and initially that seemed promising as I
> guess it logs any event you give it at the "all" level. However, as a well
> known logger it suffers from the same issues above.
>
>
> Now we're looking to add Business events. My initial thinking is that I
> can do the same thing we did before. Add an additional custom level called
> "Business" and expose methods for creating a business event.
I would NOT create a custom level. Instead, I would use a Logger called
"Business".
> Though unlike the compliance event, the application teams would be
> defining the schema more so than our framework team. Thus any method we
> expose would just be used as a starting point for setting the common
> properties. You would use another instance of our unix domain socket
> appender for these business events and forward them to a different location
> as business events would most likely have a different retention period than
> compliance events. Plus you might also want them in a different store as
> you may never need to query for both categories of events and thus no need
> to query against a larger set of data.
>
>
> In addition we're planning to capture centrally what we refer to as
> diagnostic events: error, info, warn, debug, trace, etc. However, we may
> need to separate these out into two different categories:
> critical-diagnostic and noncritical-diagnostic.
This could be a user case for custom levels IF one is more important than
the other which it sure sounds like it is.
> The reason is that we don't want the potential of a critical diagnostic
> event, let's say an error, queued up behind potentially thousands of
> non-critical diagnostic events. So you see, the category also defines
> aspects on how we handle events at the source. We separate at the source
> based on category as it seems a reasonable place to do so. Also, you may
> want different flush times for different categories. We have a process
> which buffers, compresses and sends events centrally so we have the notion
> of flush time. The buffers are flushed when they become full or the flush
> time elapses. Errors, since they are more critical in monitoring systems,
> we'll most likely want to flush more often than say debug and trace events.
>
>
> Sorry for the long winded explanation. Initially I was thinking that when
> we create an event we'd set its category. However, now I'm thinking the
> category should be set by the act of logging the event at a level. In some
> cases we have a 1:1 mapping from level to category, eg. compliance level ->
> compliance category. In some cases we have a many:1 mapping from level to
> category, eg. error, info, warn -> critical-diagnostic.
>
>
> We could also just define a single custom level, say "always_on", or
> something like that. Then we provide some helper method to log our "new"
> event categories (eg. business and compliance) at this level and have the
> user specify the category, I guess similar to a marker.
>
Log4j has a level called ALL.
I would really try to work hard to stay within the feature set before
thinking about anything custom.
If you can make critical-diagnostic and noncritical-diagnostic events to
stock levels, that much the better.
Gary
>
>
> logEvent(Logger logger, String category, object evnt);
>
>
> I guess it's similar to the EventLogger except that we're not using a
> single well known logger and thus don't have the downsides of that which I
> pointed out earlier.
>
>
> Any thoughts/suggestions would be appreciated.
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Nick
>
> ________________________________
> From: Mikael Ståldal <mi...@magine.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, September 9, 2015 3:47 AM
> To: Log4J Users List
> Subject: Re: approach for defining loggers
>
> Then perhaps you should create your own facade for doing business event
> logging, which could then forward them to Log4j in an appropriate way.
>
> On Wed, Sep 9, 2015 at 4:49 AM, Nicholas Duane <ni...@msn.com> wrote:
>
> > I was just about to reply to your previous email about using a single
> > "business" logger, or some hierarchy of business loggers, to log business
> > events and say that we might go that route. However, now that you
> brought
> > up the post from Ralph, which I just replied to, I'm thinking a logger
> > won't work either for the same reason I listed in my reply to Ralph's
> post.
> >
> > You could do:
> >
> > logger.info("Hello");
> > logger.fatal("Hello");
> > logger.error("Hello");
> > ...
> >
> > It's confusing as there are n ways to log a business event that way and
> > they will all do the same thing. Which one should a developer choose.
> > Should I say pick any one, it doesn't matter?
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Nick
> >
> > > Date: Tue, 8 Sep 2015 19:28:21 -0700
> > > Subject: Re: approach for defining loggers
> > > From: garydgregory@gmail.com
> > > To: log4j-user@logging.apache.org
> > >
> > > Or
> > > Logger logger = LogManager.getLogger("Business");
> > > ...
> > > logger.info("Hello");
> > >
> > > Gary
> > >
> > > On Tue, Sep 8, 2015 at 7:24 PM, Ralph Goers <
> ralph.goers@dslextreme.com>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Can you please clarify, “If we had some way to know an event is a
> > business
> > > > event we wouldn’t need level”? I do not understand how you can code
> > > > logger.log(BUSINESS, msg) but you cannot code logger.info(BUSINESS,
> > msg).
> > > >
> > > > Ralph
> > > >
> > > > > On Sep 8, 2015, at 6:09 PM, Nicholas Duane <ni...@msn.com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > I looked over that stackoverflow post and I'm still not seeing a
> good
> > > > match as a way for us to log our business events.
> > > > >
> > > > > A business event I guess is an event which extends whatever schema
> we
> > > > come up with for a business event. While an instance of this schema
> > could
> > > > be logged at any level, that really doesn't make sense in our
> scenario,
> > > > regardless of whether some marker was supplied. If we had some way
> to
> > know
> > > > an event is a business event we wouldn't need level. We could of
> > course
> > > > add some property to our schema which indicates the 'category' of the
> > > > event, 'business' being one such category. Instead we were thinking
> we
> > > > could just use level to indicate that an event is a business event.
> > > > >
> > > > > As I mentioned, we're looking to capture 'trace' level events to
> one
> > > > store, 'info' - 'fatal' level events to another store, and 'business'
> > > > events to yet another store. For 'trace' and 'info' - 'fatal' it
> seems
> > > > reasonable to filter on level within the appender to get those events
> > to
> > > > the appropriate location. It seemed reasonable to do something
> > similar for
> > > > 'business'.
> > > > >
> > > > > I also looked into the EventLogger but not sure that's appropriate.
> > For
> > > > one we lose the granularity to control a specific piece of code from
> > > > generating business events. This is most likely a non-issue as I
> have
> > > > mentioned that we don't want to turn business logging off. The other
> > is
> > > > that we lose the name of the logger as it would be the same for
> > everyone.
> > > > Not sure this is that big a deal either as I guess you might be able
> to
> > > > capture component name, though I would rather distinguish using
> logger
> > name.
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > Nick
> > > > >
> > > > >> From: ralph.goers@dslextreme.com
> > > > >> Subject: Re: approach for defining loggers
> > > > >> Date: Mon, 7 Sep 2015 20:39:11 -0700
> > > > >> To: log4j-user@logging.apache.org
> > > > >>
> > > > >> I still don’t understand why you don’t want to use Markers. They
> > were
> > > > designed exactly for the use case you are describing.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> You might set retention policies for debug vs info, error and
> fatal,
> > > > but a BUSINESS marker could cross-cut them all. That is exactly why
> > it is
> > > > NOT a level. IOW, it gives you a second dimension for filtering. Ceki
> > > > invented Markers when he created SLF4J. For his point of view see
> > > >
> > http://stackoverflow.com/questions/16813032/what-is-
[http://cdn.sstatic.net/Sites/stackoverflow/img/apple-touch-icon@2.png?v=73d79a89bded&a]<http://stackoverflow.com/questions/16813032/what-is->
What is markers in Java Logging frameworks and that is a reason to use them?<http://stackoverflow.com/questions/16813032/what-is->
stackoverflow.com
First time I hear about markers when read: http://slf4j.org/faq.html I check available methods for Logger object: http://www.slf4j.org/api/org/slf4j/Logger.html http://logging.apache.org/log4j/2.x/
> markers-in-java-logging-frameworks-and-that-is-a-reason-to-use-them
> [http://cdn.sstatic.net/Sites/stackoverflow/img/apple-touch-
> icon@2.png?v=73d79a89bded&a]<http://stackoverflow.com/
> questions/16813032/what-is-markers-in-java-logging-
> frameworks-and-that-is-a-reason-to-use-them>
>
> What is markers in Java Logging frameworks and that is a ...<
> http://stackoverflow.com/questions/16813032/what-is-
> markers-in-java-logging-frameworks-and-that-is-a-reason-to-use-them>
> stackoverflow.com
> This is a rehashed version my answer to the question "Best practices for
> using Markers in SLF4J/Logback". Markers can be used to color or mark a
> single log statement.
>
>
> > > > <
> > > >
> > http://stackoverflow.com/questions/16813032/what-is-
> markers-in-java-logging-frameworks-and-that-is-a-reason-to-use-them
> [http://cdn.sstatic.net/Sites/stackoverflow/img/apple-touch-
> icon@2.png?v=73d79a89bded&a]<http://stackoverflow.com/
> questions/16813032/what-is-markers-in-java-logging-
> frameworks-and-that-is-a-reason-to-use-them>
>
> What is markers in Java Logging frameworks and that is a ...<
> http://stackoverflow.com/questions/16813032/what-is-
> markers-in-java-logging-frameworks-and-that-is-a-reason-to-use-them>
> stackoverflow.com
> This is a rehashed version my answer to the question "Best practices for
> using Markers in SLF4J/Logback". Markers can be used to color or mark a
> single log statement.
>
>
> > > > >.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Ralph
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >>> On Sep 7, 2015, at 5:54 PM, Nicholas Duane <ni...@msn.com>
> wrote:
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> If I'm attempting to control all the logging from the
> configuration
> > > > and I don't know the complete set of loggers in my application as
> there
> > > > could be 100's or 1000's, wouldn't it be hard to separate events
> based
> > on
> > > > loggers? It would seem much easier to separate events based on
> > level. In
> > > > addition, level might be a more reasonable approach for separating.
> > For
> > > > example, if I want to send all events to some big-data backend I
> might
> > want
> > > > to separate out traces and debug from info to fatal as traces and
> > debug are
> > > > most likely less important from a systems management aspect. My
> > retention
> > > > period for traces and debug might be just a couple days. The
> retention
> > > > period for info to fatal could be 30 days. Business level might be 2
> > > > years. Any system management notifications would probably be driven
> > off of
> > > > info to fatal events and not trace and debug events, which is another
> > > > reason you might want to separate by level.
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> Thanks,
> > > > >>> Nick
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>> Subject: Re: approach for defining loggers
> > > > >>>> From: ralph.goers@dslextreme.com
> > > > >>>> Date: Mon, 31 Aug 2015 08:50:58 -0700
> > > > >>>> To: log4j-user@logging.apache.org
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>> A logging “Level” is a level of importance. That is why there
> is a
> > > > hierarchy. If you want informational messages then you also would
> want
> > > > warnings and errors.
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>> “BUSINESS” does not convey the same meaning. Rather, it is some
> > sort
> > > > of category, which is what Markers are for.
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>> Using the class name as the logger name is a convention. If you
> > > > really want the class name, method name or line number then you
> should
> > be
> > > > specifying that you want those from the logging event, rather than
> the
> > > > logger name. Unless location information is disabled you always have
> > > > access to that information.
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>> In short, different loggers are used primarily as a way of
> > grouping
> > > > sets of messages - for example all org.hibernate events can be routed
> > to a
> > > > specific appender or turned off en masse. Levels are used to filter
> out
> > > > noise across a set of logging events. Markers are used to categorize
> > > > logging events by arbitrary attributes.
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>> Ralph
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>>> On Aug 31, 2015, at 8:10 AM, Nicholas Duane <ni...@msn.com>
> > wrote:
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>> Thanks for the feedback. I will look into Markers and MDC.
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>> With respect to using a separate logger, it would seem I would
> > lose
> > > > the information about what application code, eg. the class logger, is
> > > > sourcing the event. We would like to have this information. On top
> of
> > > > that, it seems odd, maybe to me only, that for this new level we have
> > our
> > > > own logger. It seemed reasonable to me that this new event we want
> to
> > > > capture is just a new level. Just like a DEBUG event is different
> > from an
> > > > INFO event. If I define a BUSINESS level why would that not follow
> the
> > > > same design as the current levels? You wouldn't suggest having
> > different
> > > > loggers for TRACE DEBUG INFO WARN ERROR FATAL, would you? I think
> one
> > of
> > > > the reasons someone on our side is suggesting I have separate loggers
> > is
> > > > that they think the overhead of filtering at the appender is going to
> > have
> > > > a noticeable impact. Our plan, at least the one I have now in my
> > head, is
> > > > that we'll have some number of appenders in the root. We'll then
> > filter x
> > > > < INFO events to a tracing appender, INFO <= x <= FATAL to a logging
> > > > appender, and our custom level will go to another appender.
> Thoughts?
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>> Thanks,
> > > > >>>>> Nick
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>>> Subject: Re: approach for defining loggers
> > > > >>>>>> From: ralph.goers@dslextreme.com
> > > > >>>>>> Date: Sat, 29 Aug 2015 20:59:36 -0700
> > > > >>>>>> To: log4j-user@logging.apache.org
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>> On Aug 29, 2015, at 7:44 PM, Nicholas Duane <ni...@msn.com>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>> I'm curious if there is a prescribed approach to defining
> > > > loggers. Let me state what my assumption is. I assume that normally
> > if
> > > > some piece of code wants to log events/messages that it should
> create a
> > > > logger for itself. I guess a reasonable name to use is the class
> name
> > > > itself. In terms of logger configuration I would expect that no
> > loggers
> > > > are specified in the log4j configuration UNLESS is needs settings
> other
> > > > than the default. The root logger would specify the default
> settings,
> > eg.
> > > > level and appenders. If some piece of code tied to a logger needs to
> > > > enable tracing in order to debug an issue then you would add that
> > logger to
> > > > the configuration and set the level less specific for that logger.
> Is
> > this
> > > > a typical and reasonable approach?
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>> What you describe here is the common convention. It is a
> > reasonable
> > > > approach.
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>> I asked because we have the need for a new type of event. To
> > have
> > > > this event flow to where we want it to flow the plan is to have a
> > custom
> > > > level and have all events at that level captured by a specific
> > appender.
> > > > My assumption was that for existing applications we'd just need to
> add
> > our
> > > > appender to the root and add our custom level. The app would need to
> > be
> > > > modified to log our new event at the custom level. However, someone
> > > > suggested that we could also create a separate logger for this event.
> > My
> > > > thinking is that while we don't ever want to turn off logging of this
> > > > event, loggers represent "event sources", e.g the code raising the
> > events
> > > > and thus having multiple different pieces of code use the same logger
> > > > wouldn't allow you to turn on/off logging from those different
> > sections of
> > > > code independently. I think the current configuration includes all
> the
> > > > loggers. Normally I would expect there to be many, on the order of
> > 10's or
> > > > 100's, loggers within an application. However, in the case I was
> given
> > > > there were only a handful because I think this handful is shared. So
> > as I
> > > > mentioned, this doesn't sound like an ideal design as you have less
> > > > granularity on what you can turn on/off.
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>> You have a few options. Using a CustomLevel would not be the
> > option
> > > > I would choose. Creating a custom Logger will certainly work and
> makes
> > > > routing the message to the appropriate appender rather easy. Another
> > > > approach is to use Markers. Markers are somewhat hierarchical so you
> > can
> > > > use them for a variety of purposes. If you look at how Log4j handles
> > event
> > > > logging it actually does both - it specifies EventLogger as the name
> > of the
> > > > logger to use and it uses Markers to identify the kind of event.
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>> A third option is to use the MDC or Logger properties. If you
> do
> > > > that then you can have information included in the actual logging
> event
> > > > that can affect how it is routed. I also built a system that uses the
> > > > RFC5424 format so that the event could have lots of key/value pairs
> to
> > > > identify the events.
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>> Unfortunately, without knowing more details I don’t know that
> I
> > can
> > > > give you a better idea on how I would implement it.
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>> Ralph
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > > ------------------------------------------------------------
> ---------
> > > > >>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> > log4j-user-unsubscribe@logging.apache.org
> > > > >>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail:
> > log4j-user-help@logging.apache.org
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>>
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > >>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: log4j-user-unsubscribe@
> logging.apache.org
> > > > >>>> For additional commands, e-mail:
> > log4j-user-help@logging.apache.org
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ------------------------------------------------------------
> ---------
> > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: log4j-user-unsubscribe@logging.apache.org
> > > > For additional commands, e-mail: log4j-user-help@logging.apache.org
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > E-Mail: garydgregory@gmail.com | ggregory@apache.org
> > > Java Persistence with Hibernate, Second Edition
> > > <http://www.manning.com/bauer3/>
> > > JUnit in Action, Second Edition <http://www.manning.com/tahchiev/>
> > > Spring Batch in Action <http://www.manning.com/templier/>
> > > Blog: http://garygregory.wordpress.com
> [https://s0.wp.com/i/blank.jpg]<http://garygregory.wordpress.com/>
>
> Gary Gregory<http://garygregory.wordpress.com/>
> garygregory.wordpress.com
> Software construction, the web, and other techs
>
>
> > > Home: http://garygregory.com/
> Gary Gregory<http://garygregory.com/>
> garygregory.com
> Rocket | Seagull . I am a Software Architect for Seagull Software, a
> division of Rocket Software. Rocket Seagull specializes in tools and
> expertise to modernize ...
>
>
> > > Tweet! http://twitter.com/GaryGregory
> Gary Gregory (@GaryGregory) | Twitter<http://twitter.com/GaryGregory>
> twitter.com
> The latest Tweets from Gary Gregory (@GaryGregory). Principal Software
> Engineer, author: Java Persistence Hibernate https://t.co/3F8sYxc0oq,
> JUnit https://t.co/yXU1DqAMDG, Spring Batch https://t.co/XwoMNoBxh7.
> U.S.A.
>
>
> >
> >
>
>
>
> --
> [image: MagineTV]
>
> *Mikael Ståldal*
> Senior software developer
>
> *Magine TV*
> mikael.staldal@magine.com
> Regeringsgatan 25 | 111 53 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 not
> copy or deliver this message to anyone. In such case,
> you should destroy this message and kindly notify the sender by reply
> email.
>
--
E-Mail: garydgregory@gmail.com | ggregory@apache.org
Java Persistence with Hibernate, Second Edition
<https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1617290459/ref=as_li_tl?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creative=9325&creativeASIN=1617290459&linkCode=as2&tag=garygregory-20&linkId=cadb800f39946ec62ea2b1af9fe6a2b8>
<http:////ir-na.amazon-adsystem.com/e/ir?t=garygregory-20&l=am2&o=1&a=1617290459>
JUnit in Action, Second Edition
<https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1935182021/ref=as_li_tl?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creative=9325&creativeASIN=1935182021&linkCode=as2&tag=garygregory-20&linkId=31ecd1f6b6d1eaf8886ac902a24de418%22>
<http:////ir-na.amazon-adsystem.com/e/ir?t=garygregory-20&l=am2&o=1&a=1935182021>
Spring Batch in Action
<https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1935182951/ref=as_li_tl?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creative=9325&creativeASIN=1935182951&linkCode=%7B%7BlinkCode%7D%7D&tag=garygregory-20&linkId=%7B%7Blink_id%7D%7D%22%3ESpring+Batch+in+Action>
<http:////ir-na.amazon-adsystem.com/e/ir?t=garygregory-20&l=am2&o=1&a=1935182951>
Blog: http://garygregory.wordpress.com
Home: http://garygregory.com/
Tweet! http://twitter.com/GaryGregory
Re: approach for defining loggers
Posted by Nicholas Duane <ni...@msn.com>.
The convention is to use the class name as the logger name and we find that useful information. Getting the class name, method name and line number dynamically I assume is costly and thus we'd probably want to just stick with the logger name.
We're not planning to turn off the business events by logger name, it's just a nice option to have in the event we have some code which is misbehaving. We wouldn't have that option if we use a "well known" logger.
Thanks,
Nick
________________________________
From: Ralph Goers <ra...@dslextreme.com>
Sent: Tuesday, October 18, 2016 10:01 AM
To: Log4J Users List
Subject: Re: approach for defining loggers
The “context” of the call is only grossly captured by the logger name, and that is only by convention. If you really want the name of the class then you need the location information, which gives you the class name, method name and line number of the caller.
If these are “business” events why do you want to turn them off by the name of the logger? I would think you might want to filter out certain event types, but that shouldn’t be represented by the logger name.
Ralph
> On Oct 18, 2016, at 6:47 AM, Nicholas Duane <ni...@msn.com> wrote:
>
> That's what I initially thought. However, as I pointed out it has the same downsides as a "well known" logger. We lose the context of what code is logging the call (e.g the class name which is usually used as the logger name), and there is no way to turn on/off a section of code from logging, in the case we find some errant code. Those two are big enough issues which are keeping me away from using "well known" loggers.
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Nick
>
> ________________________________
> From: Matt Sicker <boards@gmail.com <ma...@gmail.com>>
> Sent: Monday, October 17, 2016 11:15 PM
> To: Log4J Users List
> Subject: Re: approach for defining loggers
>
> What about event logging? <
> https://logging.apache.org/log4j/2.x/manual/eventlogging.html <https://logging.apache.org/log4j/2.x/manual/eventlogging.html>>
> Log4j – Log4j 2 API - Apache Log4j 2<https://logging.apache.org/log4j/2.x/manual/eventlogging.html <https://logging.apache.org/log4j/2.x/manual/eventlogging.html>>
> logging.apache.org <http://logging.apache.org/>
> The EventLogger class provides a simple mechanism for logging events that occur in an application. While the EventLogger is useful as a way of initiating events that ...
>
>
>
> This sounds pretty similar to what you're asking about. You define a map
> message essentially, plus your other requirements seem to be met here.
>
> On 17 October 2016 at 21:46, Gary Gregory <ga...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Oct 17, 2016 at 4:27 PM, Nicholas Duane <ni...@msn.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Sorry to revive this old thread. However, we're in the process of adding
>>> support for other "categories" of events and thus I wanted to first take
>> a
>>> step back and try to ensure we're not convoluting things.
>>>
>>>
>>> There was a requirement to log a "compliance" event under certain
>>> conditions. We did not want to write our own logging framework and
>> instead
>>> decided to use existing off-the-shelf logging frameworks. We have
>>> applications on both Linux/Java, Windows/.NET and Windows/Java.
>> Initially
>>> we chose log4net for Windows/.NET and log4j2 for Windows/Java and
>>> Linux/Java. For these logging frameworks we wrote artifacts, appenders
>>> basically, to help facilitate getting these events to our system. By the
>>> way, our system will get the events centrally, possibly put them into a
>>> relational database and also hand them off to another system which will
>> get
>>> them eventually to an HDFS backend. We also exposed methods for creating
>>> this compliance event. The compliance event is basically a map. We
>> chose
>>> a map so that the event could also be extended by the application team in
>>> case they needed to add additional properties which made sense for them.
>>>
>>>
>>> We chose to create a custom level for this "compliance" event such that
>> we
>>> could filter out only these events and get them into our system. The
>>> configuration example we created had our custom unix domain socket
>> appender
>>> added to the root logger. It also contained a filter which filtered out
>>> any events that weren't compliance events. The level we chose for
>>> "compliance" was less critical than off and more critical than fatal as
>> we
>>> wanted to ensure that as long as logging wasn't turned off altogether our
>>> events would get logged.
>>>
>>>
>>> I want to go over a few suggestions that were made and explain why I
>>> didn't make use of those suggestions.
>>>
>>>
>>> 1. Since our "compliance" level didn't fit within the "vernacular" of the
>>> existing levels we should not define this custom level. Instead we
>> should
>>> look at using markers.
>>>
>>
>> Yes, this is a use case for markers. The level should be used to note how
>> important is each compliance event.
>>
>>
>>>
>>> I am not that familiar with markers but did look into them when they were
>>> suggested. While I don't have anything against markers in general there
>>> were some downsides as I saw it.
>>>
>>>
>>> a. Markers are not available, as far as I know, in log4net so we'd still
>>> have to figure out something there.
>>>
>>
>> Indeed, we really need a port of Log4j 2 to .NET.
>>
>>
>>>
>>> b. A bigger problem, at least I thought it was a bigger problem, was that
>>> there would be confusion about what level to log the event at. I would
>>> certainly not want to give an example as follows:
>>>
>>>
>>> logger.debug(COMPLIANCE_MARKER, evnt);
>>>
>>>
>>> or
>>>
>>>
>>> logger.info(COMPLIANCE_MARKER, evnt);
>>>
>>>
>>> or
>>>
>>>
>>> logger.error(COMPLIANCE_MARKER, evnt);
>>>
>>>
>>> ...
>>>
>>
>> Think about: How important is this event? Are there different level of
>> importance to the audience?
>>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> That just screams confusion to me.
>>>
>>>
>>> 2. Use a dedicated logger to log all compliance events.
>>>
>>>
>>> There were, as far as I could tell, a couple problems with this approach
>>> also.
>>>
>>>
>>> a. If everyone is using a single "well known" logger to log a specific
>>> event category then I lose the logger "context" of who's logging the
>>> event. As it stands now we're copying the logger name into a property we
>>> call "eventSource".
>>>
>>
>> A practice is to use one logger per class. Another is to use a higher-level
>> logger to represent higher-level abstractions like a module.
>>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> b. You cannot turn on/off logging for a specific set of code. If it
>> turns
>>> out that we have some errant code which is using this well known logger
>>> then we can't just turn off that code from logging as turning off the
>> well
>>> know logger would turn it off for everyone using it.
>>>
>>>
>>> I did look into the EventLogger and initially that seemed promising as I
>>> guess it logs any event you give it at the "all" level. However, as a
>> well
>>> known logger it suffers from the same issues above.
>>>
>>>
>>> Now we're looking to add Business events. My initial thinking is that I
>>> can do the same thing we did before. Add an additional custom level
>> called
>>> "Business" and expose methods for creating a business event.
>>
>>
>> I would NOT create a custom level. Instead, I would use a Logger called
>> "Business".
>>
>>
>>> Though unlike the compliance event, the application teams would be
>>> defining the schema more so than our framework team. Thus any method we
>>> expose would just be used as a starting point for setting the common
>>> properties. You would use another instance of our unix domain socket
>>> appender for these business events and forward them to a different
>> location
>>> as business events would most likely have a different retention period
>> than
>>> compliance events. Plus you might also want them in a different store as
>>> you may never need to query for both categories of events and thus no
>> need
>>> to query against a larger set of data.
>>>
>>>
>>> In addition we're planning to capture centrally what we refer to as
>>> diagnostic events: error, info, warn, debug, trace, etc. However, we may
>>> need to separate these out into two different categories:
>>> critical-diagnostic and noncritical-diagnostic.
>>
>>
>> This could be a user case for custom levels IF one is more important than
>> the other which it sure sounds like it is.
>>
>>
>>
>>> The reason is that we don't want the potential of a critical diagnostic
>>> event, let's say an error, queued up behind potentially thousands of
>>> non-critical diagnostic events. So you see, the category also defines
>>> aspects on how we handle events at the source. We separate at the
>> source
>>> based on category as it seems a reasonable place to do so. Also, you may
>>> want different flush times for different categories. We have a process
>>> which buffers, compresses and sends events centrally so we have the
>> notion
>>> of flush time. The buffers are flushed when they become full or the
>> flush
>>> time elapses. Errors, since they are more critical in monitoring
>> systems,
>>> we'll most likely want to flush more often than say debug and trace
>> events.
>>>
>>>
>>> Sorry for the long winded explanation. Initially I was thinking that
>> when
>>> we create an event we'd set its category. However, now I'm thinking the
>>> category should be set by the act of logging the event at a level. In
>> some
>>> cases we have a 1:1 mapping from level to category, eg. compliance level
>> ->
>>> compliance category. In some cases we have a many:1 mapping from level
>> to
>>> category, eg. error, info, warn -> critical-diagnostic.
>>>
>>>
>>> We could also just define a single custom level, say "always_on", or
>>> something like that. Then we provide some helper method to log our "new"
>>> event categories (eg. business and compliance) at this level and have the
>>> user specify the category, I guess similar to a marker.
>>>
>>
>> Log4j has a level called ALL.
>>
>> I would really try to work hard to stay within the feature set before
>> thinking about anything custom.
>>
>> If you can make critical-diagnostic and noncritical-diagnostic events to
>> stock levels, that much the better.
>>
>> Gary
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> logEvent(Logger logger, String category, object evnt);
>>>
>>>
>>> I guess it's similar to the EventLogger except that we're not using a
>>> single well known logger and thus don't have the downsides of that which
>> I
>>> pointed out earlier.
>>>
>>>
>>> Any thoughts/suggestions would be appreciated.
>>>
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>>
>>> Nick
>>>
>>> ________________________________
>>> From: Mikael Ståldal <mi...@magine.com>
>>> Sent: Wednesday, September 9, 2015 3:47 AM
>>> To: Log4J Users List
>>> Subject: Re: approach for defining loggers
>>>
>>> Then perhaps you should create your own facade for doing business event
>>> logging, which could then forward them to Log4j in an appropriate way.
>>>
>>> On Wed, Sep 9, 2015 at 4:49 AM, Nicholas Duane <ni...@msn.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I was just about to reply to your previous email about using a single
>>>> "business" logger, or some hierarchy of business loggers, to log
>> business
>>>> events and say that we might go that route. However, now that you
>>> brought
>>>> up the post from Ralph, which I just replied to, I'm thinking a logger
>>>> won't work either for the same reason I listed in my reply to Ralph's
>>> post.
>>>>
>>>> You could do:
>>>>
>>>> logger.info("Hello");
>>>> logger.fatal("Hello");
>>>> logger.error("Hello");
>>>> ...
>>>>
>>>> It's confusing as there are n ways to log a business event that way and
>>>> they will all do the same thing. Which one should a developer choose.
>>>> Should I say pick any one, it doesn't matter?
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> Nick
>>>>
>>>>> Date: Tue, 8 Sep 2015 19:28:21 -0700
>>>>> Subject: Re: approach for defining loggers
>>>>> From: garydgregory@gmail.com
>>>>> To: log4j-user@logging.apache.org
>>>>>
>>>>> Or
>>>>> Logger logger = LogManager.getLogger("Business");
>>>>> ...
>>>>> logger.info("Hello");
>>>>>
>>>>> Gary
>>>>>
>>>>> On Tue, Sep 8, 2015 at 7:24 PM, Ralph Goers <
>>> ralph.goers@dslextreme.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Can you please clarify, “If we had some way to know an event is a
>>>> business
>>>>>> event we wouldn’t need level”? I do not understand how you can
>> code
>>>>>> logger.log(BUSINESS, msg) but you cannot code logger.info
>> (BUSINESS,
>>>> msg).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Ralph
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Sep 8, 2015, at 6:09 PM, Nicholas Duane <ni...@msn.com>
>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I looked over that stackoverflow post and I'm still not seeing a
>>> good
>>>>>> match as a way for us to log our business events.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> A business event I guess is an event which extends whatever
>> schema
>>> we
>>>>>> come up with for a business event. While an instance of this
>> schema
>>>> could
>>>>>> be logged at any level, that really doesn't make sense in our
>>> scenario,
>>>>>> regardless of whether some marker was supplied. If we had some way
>>> to
>>>> know
>>>>>> an event is a business event we wouldn't need level. We could of
>>>> course
>>>>>> add some property to our schema which indicates the 'category' of
>> the
>>>>>> event, 'business' being one such category. Instead we were
>> thinking
>>> we
>>>>>> could just use level to indicate that an event is a business event.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> As I mentioned, we're looking to capture 'trace' level events to
>>> one
>>>>>> store, 'info' - 'fatal' level events to another store, and
>> 'business'
>>>>>> events to yet another store. For 'trace' and 'info' - 'fatal' it
>>> seems
>>>>>> reasonable to filter on level within the appender to get those
>> events
>>>> to
>>>>>> the appropriate location. It seemed reasonable to do something
>>>> similar for
>>>>>> 'business'.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I also looked into the EventLogger but not sure that's
>> appropriate.
>>>> For
>>>>>> one we lose the granularity to control a specific piece of code
>> from
>>>>>> generating business events. This is most likely a non-issue as I
>>> have
>>>>>> mentioned that we don't want to turn business logging off. The
>> other
>>>> is
>>>>>> that we lose the name of the logger as it would be the same for
>>>> everyone.
>>>>>> Not sure this is that big a deal either as I guess you might be
>> able
>>> to
>>>>>> capture component name, though I would rather distinguish using
>>> logger
>>>> name.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>> Nick
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> From: ralph.goers@dslextreme.com
>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: approach for defining loggers
>>>>>>>> Date: Mon, 7 Sep 2015 20:39:11 -0700
>>>>>>>> To: log4j-user@logging.apache.org
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I still don’t understand why you don’t want to use Markers. They
>>>> were
>>>>>> designed exactly for the use case you are describing.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You might set retention policies for debug vs info, error and
>>> fatal,
>>>>>> but a BUSINESS marker could cross-cut them all. That is exactly
>> why
>>>> it is
>>>>>> NOT a level. IOW, it gives you a second dimension for filtering.
>> Ceki
>>>>>> invented Markers when he created SLF4J. For his point of view see
>>>>>>
>>>> http://stackoverflow.com/questions/16813032/what-is-
> [http://cdn.sstatic.net/Sites/stackoverflow/img/apple-touch-icon@2.png?v=73d79a89bded&a]<http://stackoverflow.com/questions/16813032/what-is-> <http://cdn.sstatic.net/Sites/stackoverflow/img/apple-touch-icon@2.png?v=73d79a89bded&a]%3Chttp://stackoverflow.com/questions/16813032/what-is-%3E>
>
> What is markers in Java Logging frameworks and that is a reason to use them?<http://stackoverflow.com/questions/16813032/what-is- <http://stackoverflow.com/questions/16813032/what-is->>
> stackoverflow.com <http://stackoverflow.com/>
> First time I hear about markers when read: http://slf4j.org/faq.html <http://slf4j.org/faq.html> I check available methods for Logger object: http://www.slf4j.org/api/org/slf4j/Logger.html <http://www.slf4j.org/api/org/slf4j/Logger.html> http://logging.apache.org/log4j/2.x/ <http://logging.apache.org/log4j/2.x/>
>
>
>>> markers-in-java-logging-frameworks-and-that-is-a-reason-to-use-them
>>> [http://cdn.sstatic.net/Sites/stackoverflow/img/apple-touch-
>>> icon@2.png?v=73d79a89bded&a]<http://stackoverflow.com/
>>> questions/16813032/what-is-markers-in-java-logging-
>>> frameworks-and-that-is-a-reason-to-use-them>
>>>
>>> What is markers in Java Logging frameworks and that is a ...<
>>> http://stackoverflow.com/questions/16813032/what-is-
>>> markers-in-java-logging-frameworks-and-that-is-a-reason-to-use-them>
>>> stackoverflow.com
>>> This is a rehashed version my answer to the question "Best practices for
>>> using Markers in SLF4J/Logback". Markers can be used to color or mark a
>>> single log statement.
>>>
>>>
>>>>>> <
>>>>>>
>>>> http://stackoverflow.com/questions/16813032/what-is-
>>> markers-in-java-logging-frameworks-and-that-is-a-reason-to-use-them
>>> [http://cdn.sstatic.net/Sites/stackoverflow/img/apple-touch-
>>> icon@2.png?v=73d79a89bded&a]<http://stackoverflow.com/
>>> questions/16813032/what-is-markers-in-java-logging-
>>> frameworks-and-that-is-a-reason-to-use-them>
>>>
>>> What is markers in Java Logging frameworks and that is a ...<
>>> http://stackoverflow.com/questions/16813032/what-is-
>>> markers-in-java-logging-frameworks-and-that-is-a-reason-to-use-them>
>>> stackoverflow.com
>>> This is a rehashed version my answer to the question "Best practices for
>>> using Markers in SLF4J/Logback". Markers can be used to color or mark a
>>> single log statement.
>>>
>>>
>>>>>>> .
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Ralph
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Sep 7, 2015, at 5:54 PM, Nicholas Duane <ni...@msn.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> If I'm attempting to control all the logging from the
>>> configuration
>>>>>> and I don't know the complete set of loggers in my application as
>>> there
>>>>>> could be 100's or 1000's, wouldn't it be hard to separate events
>>> based
>>>> on
>>>>>> loggers? It would seem much easier to separate events based on
>>>> level. In
>>>>>> addition, level might be a more reasonable approach for separating.
>>>> For
>>>>>> example, if I want to send all events to some big-data backend I
>>> might
>>>> want
>>>>>> to separate out traces and debug from info to fatal as traces and
>>>> debug are
>>>>>> most likely less important from a systems management aspect. My
>>>> retention
>>>>>> period for traces and debug might be just a couple days. The
>>> retention
>>>>>> period for info to fatal could be 30 days. Business level might
>> be 2
>>>>>> years. Any system management notifications would probably be
>> driven
>>>> off of
>>>>>> info to fatal events and not trace and debug events, which is
>> another
>>>>>> reason you might want to separate by level.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>>> Nick
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: approach for defining loggers
>>>>>>>>>> From: ralph.goers@dslextreme.com
>>>>>>>>>> Date: Mon, 31 Aug 2015 08:50:58 -0700
>>>>>>>>>> To: log4j-user@logging.apache.org
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> A logging “Level” is a level of importance. That is why there
>>> is a
>>>>>> hierarchy. If you want informational messages then you also would
>>> want
>>>>>> warnings and errors.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> “BUSINESS” does not convey the same meaning. Rather, it is
>> some
>>>> sort
>>>>>> of category, which is what Markers are for.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Using the class name as the logger name is a convention. If
>> you
>>>>>> really want the class name, method name or line number then you
>>> should
>>>> be
>>>>>> specifying that you want those from the logging event, rather than
>>> the
>>>>>> logger name. Unless location information is disabled you always
>> have
>>>>>> access to that information.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> In short, different loggers are used primarily as a way of
>>>> grouping
>>>>>> sets of messages - for example all org.hibernate events can be
>> routed
>>>> to a
>>>>>> specific appender or turned off en masse. Levels are used to filter
>>> out
>>>>>> noise across a set of logging events. Markers are used to
>> categorize
>>>>>> logging events by arbitrary attributes.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Ralph
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On Aug 31, 2015, at 8:10 AM, Nicholas Duane <ni...@msn.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks for the feedback. I will look into Markers and MDC.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> With respect to using a separate logger, it would seem I
>> would
>>>> lose
>>>>>> the information about what application code, eg. the class logger,
>> is
>>>>>> sourcing the event. We would like to have this information. On
>> top
>>> of
>>>>>> that, it seems odd, maybe to me only, that for this new level we
>> have
>>>> our
>>>>>> own logger. It seemed reasonable to me that this new event we want
>>> to
>>>>>> capture is just a new level. Just like a DEBUG event is different
>>>> from an
>>>>>> INFO event. If I define a BUSINESS level why would that not follow
>>> the
>>>>>> same design as the current levels? You wouldn't suggest having
>>>> different
>>>>>> loggers for TRACE DEBUG INFO WARN ERROR FATAL, would you? I think
>>> one
>>>> of
>>>>>> the reasons someone on our side is suggesting I have separate
>> loggers
>>>> is
>>>>>> that they think the overhead of filtering at the appender is going
>> to
>>>> have
>>>>>> a noticeable impact. Our plan, at least the one I have now in my
>>>> head, is
>>>>>> that we'll have some number of appenders in the root. We'll then
>>>> filter x
>>>>>> < INFO events to a tracing appender, INFO <= x <= FATAL to a
>> logging
>>>>>> appender, and our custom level will go to another appender.
>>> Thoughts?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>>>>> Nick
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: approach for defining loggers
>>>>>>>>>>>> From: ralph.goers@dslextreme.com
>>>>>>>>>>>> Date: Sat, 29 Aug 2015 20:59:36 -0700
>>>>>>>>>>>> To: log4j-user@logging.apache.org
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Aug 29, 2015, at 7:44 PM, Nicholas Duane <
>> nickdu@msn.com>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm curious if there is a prescribed approach to defining
>>>>>> loggers. Let me state what my assumption is. I assume that
>> normally
>>>> if
>>>>>> some piece of code wants to log events/messages that it should
>>> create a
>>>>>> logger for itself. I guess a reasonable name to use is the class
>>> name
>>>>>> itself. In terms of logger configuration I would expect that no
>>>> loggers
>>>>>> are specified in the log4j configuration UNLESS is needs settings
>>> other
>>>>>> than the default. The root logger would specify the default
>>> settings,
>>>> eg.
>>>>>> level and appenders. If some piece of code tied to a logger needs
>> to
>>>>>> enable tracing in order to debug an issue then you would add that
>>>> logger to
>>>>>> the configuration and set the level less specific for that logger.
>>> Is
>>>> this
>>>>>> a typical and reasonable approach?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> What you describe here is the common convention. It is a
>>>> reasonable
>>>>>> approach.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I asked because we have the need for a new type of event.
>> To
>>>> have
>>>>>> this event flow to where we want it to flow the plan is to have a
>>>> custom
>>>>>> level and have all events at that level captured by a specific
>>>> appender.
>>>>>> My assumption was that for existing applications we'd just need to
>>> add
>>>> our
>>>>>> appender to the root and add our custom level. The app would need
>> to
>>>> be
>>>>>> modified to log our new event at the custom level. However,
>> someone
>>>>>> suggested that we could also create a separate logger for this
>> event.
>>>> My
>>>>>> thinking is that while we don't ever want to turn off logging of
>> this
>>>>>> event, loggers represent "event sources", e.g the code raising the
>>>> events
>>>>>> and thus having multiple different pieces of code use the same
>> logger
>>>>>> wouldn't allow you to turn on/off logging from those different
>>>> sections of
>>>>>> code independently. I think the current configuration includes all
>>> the
>>>>>> loggers. Normally I would expect there to be many, on the order of
>>>> 10's or
>>>>>> 100's, loggers within an application. However, in the case I was
>>> given
>>>>>> there were only a handful because I think this handful is shared.
>> So
>>>> as I
>>>>>> mentioned, this doesn't sound like an ideal design as you have less
>>>>>> granularity on what you can turn on/off.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> You have a few options. Using a CustomLevel would not be the
>>>> option
>>>>>> I would choose. Creating a custom Logger will certainly work and
>>> makes
>>>>>> routing the message to the appropriate appender rather easy.
>> Another
>>>>>> approach is to use Markers. Markers are somewhat hierarchical so
>> you
>>>> can
>>>>>> use them for a variety of purposes. If you look at how Log4j
>> handles
>>>> event
>>>>>> logging it actually does both - it specifies EventLogger as the
>> name
>>>> of the
>>>>>> logger to use and it uses Markers to identify the kind of event.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> A third option is to use the MDC or Logger properties. If
>> you
>>> do
>>>>>> that then you can have information included in the actual logging
>>> event
>>>>>> that can affect how it is routed. I also built a system that uses
>> the
>>>>>> RFC5424 format so that the event could have lots of key/value pairs
>>> to
>>>>>> identify the events.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Unfortunately, without knowing more details I don’t know
>> that
>>> I
>>>> can
>>>>>> give you a better idea on how I would implement it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Ralph
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------
>>> ---------
>>>>>>>>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
>>>> log4j-user-unsubscribe@logging.apache.org
>>>>>>>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail:
>>>> log4j-user-help@logging.apache.org
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: log4j-user-unsubscribe@
>>> logging.apache.org
>>>>>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail:
>>>> log4j-user-help@logging.apache.org
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------
>>> ---------
>>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: log4j-user-unsubscribe@logging.apache.org
>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: log4j-user-help@logging.
>> apache.org
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> E-Mail: garydgregory@gmail.com | ggregory@apache.org
>>>>> Java Persistence with Hibernate, Second Edition
>>>>> <http://www.manning.com/bauer3/>
>>>>> JUnit in Action, Second Edition <http://www.manning.com/tahchiev/>
>>>>> Spring Batch in Action <http://www.manning.com/templier/>
>>>>> Blog: http://garygregory.wordpress.com
>>> [https://s0.wp.com/i/blank.jpg]<http://garygregory.wordpress.com/>
>>>
>>> Gary Gregory<http://garygregory.wordpress.com/>
>>> garygregory.wordpress.com
>>> Software construction, the web, and other techs
>>>
>>>
>>>>> Home: http://garygregory.com/
>>> Gary Gregory<http://garygregory.com/>
>>> garygregory.com
>>> Rocket | Seagull . I am a Software Architect for Seagull Software, a
>>> division of Rocket Software. Rocket Seagull specializes in tools and
>>> expertise to modernize ...
>>>
>>>
>>>>> Tweet! http://twitter.com/GaryGregory
>>> Gary Gregory (@GaryGregory) | Twitter<http://twitter.com/GaryGregory>
>>> twitter.com
>>> The latest Tweets from Gary Gregory (@GaryGregory). Principal Software
>>> Engineer, author: Java Persistence Hibernate https://t.co/3F8sYxc0oq,
>>> JUnit https://t.co/yXU1DqAMDG, Spring Batch https://t.co/XwoMNoBxh7.
>>> U.S.A.
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> [image: MagineTV]
>>>
>>> *Mikael Ståldal*
>>> Senior software developer
>>>
>>> *Magine TV*
>>> mikael.staldal@magine.com
>>> Regeringsgatan 25 | 111 53 Stockholm, Sweden | www.magine.com<<http://www.magine.com<>
>>> http://www.magine.com <http://www.magine.com/>>
>>> [https://de.magine.com/content/uploads/2016/09/magine_global_social.png <https://de.magine.com/content/uploads/2016/09/magine_global_social.png>
>> ]<
>>> http://www.magine.com/ <http://www.magine.com/>>
>>>
>>> TV online with Magine TV<http://www.magine.com/ <http://www.magine.com/>>
>>> www.magine.com<http://www.magine.com> <http://www.magine.com/><http://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
>> not
>>> copy or deliver this message to anyone. In such case,
>>> you should destroy this message and kindly notify the sender by reply
>>> email.
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> E-Mail: garydgregory@gmail.com | ggregory@apache.org
>> Java Persistence with Hibernate, Second Edition
>> <https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1617290459/ref=as_li_
>> tl?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creative=9325&creativeASIN=1617290459&
>> linkCode=as2&tag=garygregory-20&linkId=cadb800f39946ec62ea2b1af9fe6a2b8>
>>
>> <http:////ir-na.amazon-adsystem.com/e/ir?t=garygregory-20&l=am2&o=1&a=
>> 1617290459>
>> JUnit in Action, Second Edition
>> <https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1935182021/ref=as_li_
>> tl?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creative=9325&creativeASIN=1935182021&
>> linkCode=as2&tag=garygregory-20&linkId=31ecd1f6b6d1eaf8886ac902a24de418%22
>>>
>>
>> <http:////ir-na.amazon-adsystem.com/e/ir?t=garygregory-20&l=am2&o=1&a=
>> 1935182021>
>> Spring Batch in Action
>> <https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1935182951/ref=as_li_
>> tl?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creative=9325&creativeASIN=1935182951&
>> linkCode=%7B%7BlinkCode%7D%7D&tag=garygregory-20&linkId=%7B%
>> 7Blink_id%7D%7D%22%3ESpring+Batch+in+Action>
>> <http:////ir-na.amazon-adsystem.com/e/ir?t=garygregory-20&l=am2&o=1&a=
>> 1935182951>
>> Blog: http://garygregory.wordpress.com
>> Home: http://garygregory.com/
>> Tweet! http://twitter.com/GaryGregory
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Matt Sicker <bo...@gmail.com>
Re: approach for defining loggers
Posted by Ralph Goers <ra...@dslextreme.com>.
The “context” of the call is only grossly captured by the logger name, and that is only by convention. If you really want the name of the class then you need the location information, which gives you the class name, method name and line number of the caller.
If these are “business” events why do you want to turn them off by the name of the logger? I would think you might want to filter out certain event types, but that shouldn’t be represented by the logger name.
Ralph
> On Oct 18, 2016, at 6:47 AM, Nicholas Duane <ni...@msn.com> wrote:
>
> That's what I initially thought. However, as I pointed out it has the same downsides as a "well known" logger. We lose the context of what code is logging the call (e.g the class name which is usually used as the logger name), and there is no way to turn on/off a section of code from logging, in the case we find some errant code. Those two are big enough issues which are keeping me away from using "well known" loggers.
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Nick
>
> ________________________________
> From: Matt Sicker <boards@gmail.com <ma...@gmail.com>>
> Sent: Monday, October 17, 2016 11:15 PM
> To: Log4J Users List
> Subject: Re: approach for defining loggers
>
> What about event logging? <
> https://logging.apache.org/log4j/2.x/manual/eventlogging.html <https://logging.apache.org/log4j/2.x/manual/eventlogging.html>>
> Log4j – Log4j 2 API - Apache Log4j 2<https://logging.apache.org/log4j/2.x/manual/eventlogging.html <https://logging.apache.org/log4j/2.x/manual/eventlogging.html>>
> logging.apache.org <http://logging.apache.org/>
> The EventLogger class provides a simple mechanism for logging events that occur in an application. While the EventLogger is useful as a way of initiating events that ...
>
>
>
> This sounds pretty similar to what you're asking about. You define a map
> message essentially, plus your other requirements seem to be met here.
>
> On 17 October 2016 at 21:46, Gary Gregory <ga...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Oct 17, 2016 at 4:27 PM, Nicholas Duane <ni...@msn.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Sorry to revive this old thread. However, we're in the process of adding
>>> support for other "categories" of events and thus I wanted to first take
>> a
>>> step back and try to ensure we're not convoluting things.
>>>
>>>
>>> There was a requirement to log a "compliance" event under certain
>>> conditions. We did not want to write our own logging framework and
>> instead
>>> decided to use existing off-the-shelf logging frameworks. We have
>>> applications on both Linux/Java, Windows/.NET and Windows/Java.
>> Initially
>>> we chose log4net for Windows/.NET and log4j2 for Windows/Java and
>>> Linux/Java. For these logging frameworks we wrote artifacts, appenders
>>> basically, to help facilitate getting these events to our system. By the
>>> way, our system will get the events centrally, possibly put them into a
>>> relational database and also hand them off to another system which will
>> get
>>> them eventually to an HDFS backend. We also exposed methods for creating
>>> this compliance event. The compliance event is basically a map. We
>> chose
>>> a map so that the event could also be extended by the application team in
>>> case they needed to add additional properties which made sense for them.
>>>
>>>
>>> We chose to create a custom level for this "compliance" event such that
>> we
>>> could filter out only these events and get them into our system. The
>>> configuration example we created had our custom unix domain socket
>> appender
>>> added to the root logger. It also contained a filter which filtered out
>>> any events that weren't compliance events. The level we chose for
>>> "compliance" was less critical than off and more critical than fatal as
>> we
>>> wanted to ensure that as long as logging wasn't turned off altogether our
>>> events would get logged.
>>>
>>>
>>> I want to go over a few suggestions that were made and explain why I
>>> didn't make use of those suggestions.
>>>
>>>
>>> 1. Since our "compliance" level didn't fit within the "vernacular" of the
>>> existing levels we should not define this custom level. Instead we
>> should
>>> look at using markers.
>>>
>>
>> Yes, this is a use case for markers. The level should be used to note how
>> important is each compliance event.
>>
>>
>>>
>>> I am not that familiar with markers but did look into them when they were
>>> suggested. While I don't have anything against markers in general there
>>> were some downsides as I saw it.
>>>
>>>
>>> a. Markers are not available, as far as I know, in log4net so we'd still
>>> have to figure out something there.
>>>
>>
>> Indeed, we really need a port of Log4j 2 to .NET.
>>
>>
>>>
>>> b. A bigger problem, at least I thought it was a bigger problem, was that
>>> there would be confusion about what level to log the event at. I would
>>> certainly not want to give an example as follows:
>>>
>>>
>>> logger.debug(COMPLIANCE_MARKER, evnt);
>>>
>>>
>>> or
>>>
>>>
>>> logger.info(COMPLIANCE_MARKER, evnt);
>>>
>>>
>>> or
>>>
>>>
>>> logger.error(COMPLIANCE_MARKER, evnt);
>>>
>>>
>>> ...
>>>
>>
>> Think about: How important is this event? Are there different level of
>> importance to the audience?
>>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> That just screams confusion to me.
>>>
>>>
>>> 2. Use a dedicated logger to log all compliance events.
>>>
>>>
>>> There were, as far as I could tell, a couple problems with this approach
>>> also.
>>>
>>>
>>> a. If everyone is using a single "well known" logger to log a specific
>>> event category then I lose the logger "context" of who's logging the
>>> event. As it stands now we're copying the logger name into a property we
>>> call "eventSource".
>>>
>>
>> A practice is to use one logger per class. Another is to use a higher-level
>> logger to represent higher-level abstractions like a module.
>>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> b. You cannot turn on/off logging for a specific set of code. If it
>> turns
>>> out that we have some errant code which is using this well known logger
>>> then we can't just turn off that code from logging as turning off the
>> well
>>> know logger would turn it off for everyone using it.
>>>
>>>
>>> I did look into the EventLogger and initially that seemed promising as I
>>> guess it logs any event you give it at the "all" level. However, as a
>> well
>>> known logger it suffers from the same issues above.
>>>
>>>
>>> Now we're looking to add Business events. My initial thinking is that I
>>> can do the same thing we did before. Add an additional custom level
>> called
>>> "Business" and expose methods for creating a business event.
>>
>>
>> I would NOT create a custom level. Instead, I would use a Logger called
>> "Business".
>>
>>
>>> Though unlike the compliance event, the application teams would be
>>> defining the schema more so than our framework team. Thus any method we
>>> expose would just be used as a starting point for setting the common
>>> properties. You would use another instance of our unix domain socket
>>> appender for these business events and forward them to a different
>> location
>>> as business events would most likely have a different retention period
>> than
>>> compliance events. Plus you might also want them in a different store as
>>> you may never need to query for both categories of events and thus no
>> need
>>> to query against a larger set of data.
>>>
>>>
>>> In addition we're planning to capture centrally what we refer to as
>>> diagnostic events: error, info, warn, debug, trace, etc. However, we may
>>> need to separate these out into two different categories:
>>> critical-diagnostic and noncritical-diagnostic.
>>
>>
>> This could be a user case for custom levels IF one is more important than
>> the other which it sure sounds like it is.
>>
>>
>>
>>> The reason is that we don't want the potential of a critical diagnostic
>>> event, let's say an error, queued up behind potentially thousands of
>>> non-critical diagnostic events. So you see, the category also defines
>>> aspects on how we handle events at the source. We separate at the
>> source
>>> based on category as it seems a reasonable place to do so. Also, you may
>>> want different flush times for different categories. We have a process
>>> which buffers, compresses and sends events centrally so we have the
>> notion
>>> of flush time. The buffers are flushed when they become full or the
>> flush
>>> time elapses. Errors, since they are more critical in monitoring
>> systems,
>>> we'll most likely want to flush more often than say debug and trace
>> events.
>>>
>>>
>>> Sorry for the long winded explanation. Initially I was thinking that
>> when
>>> we create an event we'd set its category. However, now I'm thinking the
>>> category should be set by the act of logging the event at a level. In
>> some
>>> cases we have a 1:1 mapping from level to category, eg. compliance level
>> ->
>>> compliance category. In some cases we have a many:1 mapping from level
>> to
>>> category, eg. error, info, warn -> critical-diagnostic.
>>>
>>>
>>> We could also just define a single custom level, say "always_on", or
>>> something like that. Then we provide some helper method to log our "new"
>>> event categories (eg. business and compliance) at this level and have the
>>> user specify the category, I guess similar to a marker.
>>>
>>
>> Log4j has a level called ALL.
>>
>> I would really try to work hard to stay within the feature set before
>> thinking about anything custom.
>>
>> If you can make critical-diagnostic and noncritical-diagnostic events to
>> stock levels, that much the better.
>>
>> Gary
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> logEvent(Logger logger, String category, object evnt);
>>>
>>>
>>> I guess it's similar to the EventLogger except that we're not using a
>>> single well known logger and thus don't have the downsides of that which
>> I
>>> pointed out earlier.
>>>
>>>
>>> Any thoughts/suggestions would be appreciated.
>>>
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>>
>>> Nick
>>>
>>> ________________________________
>>> From: Mikael Ståldal <mi...@magine.com>
>>> Sent: Wednesday, September 9, 2015 3:47 AM
>>> To: Log4J Users List
>>> Subject: Re: approach for defining loggers
>>>
>>> Then perhaps you should create your own facade for doing business event
>>> logging, which could then forward them to Log4j in an appropriate way.
>>>
>>> On Wed, Sep 9, 2015 at 4:49 AM, Nicholas Duane <ni...@msn.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I was just about to reply to your previous email about using a single
>>>> "business" logger, or some hierarchy of business loggers, to log
>> business
>>>> events and say that we might go that route. However, now that you
>>> brought
>>>> up the post from Ralph, which I just replied to, I'm thinking a logger
>>>> won't work either for the same reason I listed in my reply to Ralph's
>>> post.
>>>>
>>>> You could do:
>>>>
>>>> logger.info("Hello");
>>>> logger.fatal("Hello");
>>>> logger.error("Hello");
>>>> ...
>>>>
>>>> It's confusing as there are n ways to log a business event that way and
>>>> they will all do the same thing. Which one should a developer choose.
>>>> Should I say pick any one, it doesn't matter?
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> Nick
>>>>
>>>>> Date: Tue, 8 Sep 2015 19:28:21 -0700
>>>>> Subject: Re: approach for defining loggers
>>>>> From: garydgregory@gmail.com
>>>>> To: log4j-user@logging.apache.org
>>>>>
>>>>> Or
>>>>> Logger logger = LogManager.getLogger("Business");
>>>>> ...
>>>>> logger.info("Hello");
>>>>>
>>>>> Gary
>>>>>
>>>>> On Tue, Sep 8, 2015 at 7:24 PM, Ralph Goers <
>>> ralph.goers@dslextreme.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Can you please clarify, “If we had some way to know an event is a
>>>> business
>>>>>> event we wouldn’t need level”? I do not understand how you can
>> code
>>>>>> logger.log(BUSINESS, msg) but you cannot code logger.info
>> (BUSINESS,
>>>> msg).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Ralph
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Sep 8, 2015, at 6:09 PM, Nicholas Duane <ni...@msn.com>
>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I looked over that stackoverflow post and I'm still not seeing a
>>> good
>>>>>> match as a way for us to log our business events.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> A business event I guess is an event which extends whatever
>> schema
>>> we
>>>>>> come up with for a business event. While an instance of this
>> schema
>>>> could
>>>>>> be logged at any level, that really doesn't make sense in our
>>> scenario,
>>>>>> regardless of whether some marker was supplied. If we had some way
>>> to
>>>> know
>>>>>> an event is a business event we wouldn't need level. We could of
>>>> course
>>>>>> add some property to our schema which indicates the 'category' of
>> the
>>>>>> event, 'business' being one such category. Instead we were
>> thinking
>>> we
>>>>>> could just use level to indicate that an event is a business event.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> As I mentioned, we're looking to capture 'trace' level events to
>>> one
>>>>>> store, 'info' - 'fatal' level events to another store, and
>> 'business'
>>>>>> events to yet another store. For 'trace' and 'info' - 'fatal' it
>>> seems
>>>>>> reasonable to filter on level within the appender to get those
>> events
>>>> to
>>>>>> the appropriate location. It seemed reasonable to do something
>>>> similar for
>>>>>> 'business'.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I also looked into the EventLogger but not sure that's
>> appropriate.
>>>> For
>>>>>> one we lose the granularity to control a specific piece of code
>> from
>>>>>> generating business events. This is most likely a non-issue as I
>>> have
>>>>>> mentioned that we don't want to turn business logging off. The
>> other
>>>> is
>>>>>> that we lose the name of the logger as it would be the same for
>>>> everyone.
>>>>>> Not sure this is that big a deal either as I guess you might be
>> able
>>> to
>>>>>> capture component name, though I would rather distinguish using
>>> logger
>>>> name.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>> Nick
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> From: ralph.goers@dslextreme.com
>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: approach for defining loggers
>>>>>>>> Date: Mon, 7 Sep 2015 20:39:11 -0700
>>>>>>>> To: log4j-user@logging.apache.org
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I still don’t understand why you don’t want to use Markers. They
>>>> were
>>>>>> designed exactly for the use case you are describing.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You might set retention policies for debug vs info, error and
>>> fatal,
>>>>>> but a BUSINESS marker could cross-cut them all. That is exactly
>> why
>>>> it is
>>>>>> NOT a level. IOW, it gives you a second dimension for filtering.
>> Ceki
>>>>>> invented Markers when he created SLF4J. For his point of view see
>>>>>>
>>>> http://stackoverflow.com/questions/16813032/what-is-
> [http://cdn.sstatic.net/Sites/stackoverflow/img/apple-touch-icon@2.png?v=73d79a89bded&a]<http://stackoverflow.com/questions/16813032/what-is-> <http://cdn.sstatic.net/Sites/stackoverflow/img/apple-touch-icon@2.png?v=73d79a89bded&a]%3Chttp://stackoverflow.com/questions/16813032/what-is-%3E>
>
> What is markers in Java Logging frameworks and that is a reason to use them?<http://stackoverflow.com/questions/16813032/what-is- <http://stackoverflow.com/questions/16813032/what-is->>
> stackoverflow.com <http://stackoverflow.com/>
> First time I hear about markers when read: http://slf4j.org/faq.html <http://slf4j.org/faq.html> I check available methods for Logger object: http://www.slf4j.org/api/org/slf4j/Logger.html <http://www.slf4j.org/api/org/slf4j/Logger.html> http://logging.apache.org/log4j/2.x/ <http://logging.apache.org/log4j/2.x/>
>
>
>>> markers-in-java-logging-frameworks-and-that-is-a-reason-to-use-them
>>> [http://cdn.sstatic.net/Sites/stackoverflow/img/apple-touch-
>>> icon@2.png?v=73d79a89bded&a]<http://stackoverflow.com/
>>> questions/16813032/what-is-markers-in-java-logging-
>>> frameworks-and-that-is-a-reason-to-use-them>
>>>
>>> What is markers in Java Logging frameworks and that is a ...<
>>> http://stackoverflow.com/questions/16813032/what-is-
>>> markers-in-java-logging-frameworks-and-that-is-a-reason-to-use-them>
>>> stackoverflow.com
>>> This is a rehashed version my answer to the question "Best practices for
>>> using Markers in SLF4J/Logback". Markers can be used to color or mark a
>>> single log statement.
>>>
>>>
>>>>>> <
>>>>>>
>>>> http://stackoverflow.com/questions/16813032/what-is-
>>> markers-in-java-logging-frameworks-and-that-is-a-reason-to-use-them
>>> [http://cdn.sstatic.net/Sites/stackoverflow/img/apple-touch-
>>> icon@2.png?v=73d79a89bded&a]<http://stackoverflow.com/
>>> questions/16813032/what-is-markers-in-java-logging-
>>> frameworks-and-that-is-a-reason-to-use-them>
>>>
>>> What is markers in Java Logging frameworks and that is a ...<
>>> http://stackoverflow.com/questions/16813032/what-is-
>>> markers-in-java-logging-frameworks-and-that-is-a-reason-to-use-them>
>>> stackoverflow.com
>>> This is a rehashed version my answer to the question "Best practices for
>>> using Markers in SLF4J/Logback". Markers can be used to color or mark a
>>> single log statement.
>>>
>>>
>>>>>>> .
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Ralph
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Sep 7, 2015, at 5:54 PM, Nicholas Duane <ni...@msn.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> If I'm attempting to control all the logging from the
>>> configuration
>>>>>> and I don't know the complete set of loggers in my application as
>>> there
>>>>>> could be 100's or 1000's, wouldn't it be hard to separate events
>>> based
>>>> on
>>>>>> loggers? It would seem much easier to separate events based on
>>>> level. In
>>>>>> addition, level might be a more reasonable approach for separating.
>>>> For
>>>>>> example, if I want to send all events to some big-data backend I
>>> might
>>>> want
>>>>>> to separate out traces and debug from info to fatal as traces and
>>>> debug are
>>>>>> most likely less important from a systems management aspect. My
>>>> retention
>>>>>> period for traces and debug might be just a couple days. The
>>> retention
>>>>>> period for info to fatal could be 30 days. Business level might
>> be 2
>>>>>> years. Any system management notifications would probably be
>> driven
>>>> off of
>>>>>> info to fatal events and not trace and debug events, which is
>> another
>>>>>> reason you might want to separate by level.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>>> Nick
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: approach for defining loggers
>>>>>>>>>> From: ralph.goers@dslextreme.com
>>>>>>>>>> Date: Mon, 31 Aug 2015 08:50:58 -0700
>>>>>>>>>> To: log4j-user@logging.apache.org
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> A logging “Level” is a level of importance. That is why there
>>> is a
>>>>>> hierarchy. If you want informational messages then you also would
>>> want
>>>>>> warnings and errors.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> “BUSINESS” does not convey the same meaning. Rather, it is
>> some
>>>> sort
>>>>>> of category, which is what Markers are for.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Using the class name as the logger name is a convention. If
>> you
>>>>>> really want the class name, method name or line number then you
>>> should
>>>> be
>>>>>> specifying that you want those from the logging event, rather than
>>> the
>>>>>> logger name. Unless location information is disabled you always
>> have
>>>>>> access to that information.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> In short, different loggers are used primarily as a way of
>>>> grouping
>>>>>> sets of messages - for example all org.hibernate events can be
>> routed
>>>> to a
>>>>>> specific appender or turned off en masse. Levels are used to filter
>>> out
>>>>>> noise across a set of logging events. Markers are used to
>> categorize
>>>>>> logging events by arbitrary attributes.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Ralph
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On Aug 31, 2015, at 8:10 AM, Nicholas Duane <ni...@msn.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks for the feedback. I will look into Markers and MDC.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> With respect to using a separate logger, it would seem I
>> would
>>>> lose
>>>>>> the information about what application code, eg. the class logger,
>> is
>>>>>> sourcing the event. We would like to have this information. On
>> top
>>> of
>>>>>> that, it seems odd, maybe to me only, that for this new level we
>> have
>>>> our
>>>>>> own logger. It seemed reasonable to me that this new event we want
>>> to
>>>>>> capture is just a new level. Just like a DEBUG event is different
>>>> from an
>>>>>> INFO event. If I define a BUSINESS level why would that not follow
>>> the
>>>>>> same design as the current levels? You wouldn't suggest having
>>>> different
>>>>>> loggers for TRACE DEBUG INFO WARN ERROR FATAL, would you? I think
>>> one
>>>> of
>>>>>> the reasons someone on our side is suggesting I have separate
>> loggers
>>>> is
>>>>>> that they think the overhead of filtering at the appender is going
>> to
>>>> have
>>>>>> a noticeable impact. Our plan, at least the one I have now in my
>>>> head, is
>>>>>> that we'll have some number of appenders in the root. We'll then
>>>> filter x
>>>>>> < INFO events to a tracing appender, INFO <= x <= FATAL to a
>> logging
>>>>>> appender, and our custom level will go to another appender.
>>> Thoughts?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>>>>> Nick
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: approach for defining loggers
>>>>>>>>>>>> From: ralph.goers@dslextreme.com
>>>>>>>>>>>> Date: Sat, 29 Aug 2015 20:59:36 -0700
>>>>>>>>>>>> To: log4j-user@logging.apache.org
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Aug 29, 2015, at 7:44 PM, Nicholas Duane <
>> nickdu@msn.com>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm curious if there is a prescribed approach to defining
>>>>>> loggers. Let me state what my assumption is. I assume that
>> normally
>>>> if
>>>>>> some piece of code wants to log events/messages that it should
>>> create a
>>>>>> logger for itself. I guess a reasonable name to use is the class
>>> name
>>>>>> itself. In terms of logger configuration I would expect that no
>>>> loggers
>>>>>> are specified in the log4j configuration UNLESS is needs settings
>>> other
>>>>>> than the default. The root logger would specify the default
>>> settings,
>>>> eg.
>>>>>> level and appenders. If some piece of code tied to a logger needs
>> to
>>>>>> enable tracing in order to debug an issue then you would add that
>>>> logger to
>>>>>> the configuration and set the level less specific for that logger.
>>> Is
>>>> this
>>>>>> a typical and reasonable approach?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> What you describe here is the common convention. It is a
>>>> reasonable
>>>>>> approach.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I asked because we have the need for a new type of event.
>> To
>>>> have
>>>>>> this event flow to where we want it to flow the plan is to have a
>>>> custom
>>>>>> level and have all events at that level captured by a specific
>>>> appender.
>>>>>> My assumption was that for existing applications we'd just need to
>>> add
>>>> our
>>>>>> appender to the root and add our custom level. The app would need
>> to
>>>> be
>>>>>> modified to log our new event at the custom level. However,
>> someone
>>>>>> suggested that we could also create a separate logger for this
>> event.
>>>> My
>>>>>> thinking is that while we don't ever want to turn off logging of
>> this
>>>>>> event, loggers represent "event sources", e.g the code raising the
>>>> events
>>>>>> and thus having multiple different pieces of code use the same
>> logger
>>>>>> wouldn't allow you to turn on/off logging from those different
>>>> sections of
>>>>>> code independently. I think the current configuration includes all
>>> the
>>>>>> loggers. Normally I would expect there to be many, on the order of
>>>> 10's or
>>>>>> 100's, loggers within an application. However, in the case I was
>>> given
>>>>>> there were only a handful because I think this handful is shared.
>> So
>>>> as I
>>>>>> mentioned, this doesn't sound like an ideal design as you have less
>>>>>> granularity on what you can turn on/off.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> You have a few options. Using a CustomLevel would not be the
>>>> option
>>>>>> I would choose. Creating a custom Logger will certainly work and
>>> makes
>>>>>> routing the message to the appropriate appender rather easy.
>> Another
>>>>>> approach is to use Markers. Markers are somewhat hierarchical so
>> you
>>>> can
>>>>>> use them for a variety of purposes. If you look at how Log4j
>> handles
>>>> event
>>>>>> logging it actually does both - it specifies EventLogger as the
>> name
>>>> of the
>>>>>> logger to use and it uses Markers to identify the kind of event.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> A third option is to use the MDC or Logger properties. If
>> you
>>> do
>>>>>> that then you can have information included in the actual logging
>>> event
>>>>>> that can affect how it is routed. I also built a system that uses
>> the
>>>>>> RFC5424 format so that the event could have lots of key/value pairs
>>> to
>>>>>> identify the events.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Unfortunately, without knowing more details I don’t know
>> that
>>> I
>>>> can
>>>>>> give you a better idea on how I would implement it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Ralph
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------
>>> ---------
>>>>>>>>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
>>>> log4j-user-unsubscribe@logging.apache.org
>>>>>>>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail:
>>>> log4j-user-help@logging.apache.org
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: log4j-user-unsubscribe@
>>> logging.apache.org
>>>>>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail:
>>>> log4j-user-help@logging.apache.org
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------
>>> ---------
>>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: log4j-user-unsubscribe@logging.apache.org
>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: log4j-user-help@logging.
>> apache.org
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> E-Mail: garydgregory@gmail.com | ggregory@apache.org
>>>>> Java Persistence with Hibernate, Second Edition
>>>>> <http://www.manning.com/bauer3/>
>>>>> JUnit in Action, Second Edition <http://www.manning.com/tahchiev/>
>>>>> Spring Batch in Action <http://www.manning.com/templier/>
>>>>> Blog: http://garygregory.wordpress.com
>>> [https://s0.wp.com/i/blank.jpg]<http://garygregory.wordpress.com/>
>>>
>>> Gary Gregory<http://garygregory.wordpress.com/>
>>> garygregory.wordpress.com
>>> Software construction, the web, and other techs
>>>
>>>
>>>>> Home: http://garygregory.com/
>>> Gary Gregory<http://garygregory.com/>
>>> garygregory.com
>>> Rocket | Seagull . I am a Software Architect for Seagull Software, a
>>> division of Rocket Software. Rocket Seagull specializes in tools and
>>> expertise to modernize ...
>>>
>>>
>>>>> Tweet! http://twitter.com/GaryGregory
>>> Gary Gregory (@GaryGregory) | Twitter<http://twitter.com/GaryGregory>
>>> twitter.com
>>> The latest Tweets from Gary Gregory (@GaryGregory). Principal Software
>>> Engineer, author: Java Persistence Hibernate https://t.co/3F8sYxc0oq,
>>> JUnit https://t.co/yXU1DqAMDG, Spring Batch https://t.co/XwoMNoBxh7.
>>> U.S.A.
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> [image: MagineTV]
>>>
>>> *Mikael Ståldal*
>>> Senior software developer
>>>
>>> *Magine TV*
>>> mikael.staldal@magine.com
>>> Regeringsgatan 25 | 111 53 Stockholm, Sweden | www.magine.com<<http://www.magine.com<>
>>> http://www.magine.com <http://www.magine.com/>>
>>> [https://de.magine.com/content/uploads/2016/09/magine_global_social.png <https://de.magine.com/content/uploads/2016/09/magine_global_social.png>
>> ]<
>>> http://www.magine.com/ <http://www.magine.com/>>
>>>
>>> TV online with Magine TV<http://www.magine.com/ <http://www.magine.com/>>
>>> www.magine.com <http://www.magine.com/><http://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
>> not
>>> copy or deliver this message to anyone. In such case,
>>> you should destroy this message and kindly notify the sender by reply
>>> email.
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> E-Mail: garydgregory@gmail.com | ggregory@apache.org
>> Java Persistence with Hibernate, Second Edition
>> <https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1617290459/ref=as_li_
>> tl?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creative=9325&creativeASIN=1617290459&
>> linkCode=as2&tag=garygregory-20&linkId=cadb800f39946ec62ea2b1af9fe6a2b8>
>>
>> <http:////ir-na.amazon-adsystem.com/e/ir?t=garygregory-20&l=am2&o=1&a=
>> 1617290459>
>> JUnit in Action, Second Edition
>> <https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1935182021/ref=as_li_
>> tl?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creative=9325&creativeASIN=1935182021&
>> linkCode=as2&tag=garygregory-20&linkId=31ecd1f6b6d1eaf8886ac902a24de418%22
>>>
>>
>> <http:////ir-na.amazon-adsystem.com/e/ir?t=garygregory-20&l=am2&o=1&a=
>> 1935182021>
>> Spring Batch in Action
>> <https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1935182951/ref=as_li_
>> tl?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creative=9325&creativeASIN=1935182951&
>> linkCode=%7B%7BlinkCode%7D%7D&tag=garygregory-20&linkId=%7B%
>> 7Blink_id%7D%7D%22%3ESpring+Batch+in+Action>
>> <http:////ir-na.amazon-adsystem.com/e/ir?t=garygregory-20&l=am2&o=1&a=
>> 1935182951>
>> Blog: http://garygregory.wordpress.com
>> Home: http://garygregory.com/
>> Tweet! http://twitter.com/GaryGregory
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Matt Sicker <bo...@gmail.com>
Re: approach for defining loggers
Posted by Nicholas Duane <ni...@msn.com>.
That's what I initially thought. However, as I pointed out it has the same downsides as a "well known" logger. We lose the context of what code is logging the call (e.g the class name which is usually used as the logger name), and there is no way to turn on/off a section of code from logging, in the case we find some errant code. Those two are big enough issues which are keeping me away from using "well known" loggers.
Thanks,
Nick
________________________________
From: Matt Sicker <bo...@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, October 17, 2016 11:15 PM
To: Log4J Users List
Subject: Re: approach for defining loggers
What about event logging? <
https://logging.apache.org/log4j/2.x/manual/eventlogging.html>
Log4j – Log4j 2 API - Apache Log4j 2<https://logging.apache.org/log4j/2.x/manual/eventlogging.html>
logging.apache.org
The EventLogger class provides a simple mechanism for logging events that occur in an application. While the EventLogger is useful as a way of initiating events that ...
This sounds pretty similar to what you're asking about. You define a map
message essentially, plus your other requirements seem to be met here.
On 17 October 2016 at 21:46, Gary Gregory <ga...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 17, 2016 at 4:27 PM, Nicholas Duane <ni...@msn.com> wrote:
>
> > Sorry to revive this old thread. However, we're in the process of adding
> > support for other "categories" of events and thus I wanted to first take
> a
> > step back and try to ensure we're not convoluting things.
> >
> >
> > There was a requirement to log a "compliance" event under certain
> > conditions. We did not want to write our own logging framework and
> instead
> > decided to use existing off-the-shelf logging frameworks. We have
> > applications on both Linux/Java, Windows/.NET and Windows/Java.
> Initially
> > we chose log4net for Windows/.NET and log4j2 for Windows/Java and
> > Linux/Java. For these logging frameworks we wrote artifacts, appenders
> > basically, to help facilitate getting these events to our system. By the
> > way, our system will get the events centrally, possibly put them into a
> > relational database and also hand them off to another system which will
> get
> > them eventually to an HDFS backend. We also exposed methods for creating
> > this compliance event. The compliance event is basically a map. We
> chose
> > a map so that the event could also be extended by the application team in
> > case they needed to add additional properties which made sense for them.
> >
> >
> > We chose to create a custom level for this "compliance" event such that
> we
> > could filter out only these events and get them into our system. The
> > configuration example we created had our custom unix domain socket
> appender
> > added to the root logger. It also contained a filter which filtered out
> > any events that weren't compliance events. The level we chose for
> > "compliance" was less critical than off and more critical than fatal as
> we
> > wanted to ensure that as long as logging wasn't turned off altogether our
> > events would get logged.
> >
> >
> > I want to go over a few suggestions that were made and explain why I
> > didn't make use of those suggestions.
> >
> >
> > 1. Since our "compliance" level didn't fit within the "vernacular" of the
> > existing levels we should not define this custom level. Instead we
> should
> > look at using markers.
> >
>
> Yes, this is a use case for markers. The level should be used to note how
> important is each compliance event.
>
>
> >
> > I am not that familiar with markers but did look into them when they were
> > suggested. While I don't have anything against markers in general there
> > were some downsides as I saw it.
> >
> >
> > a. Markers are not available, as far as I know, in log4net so we'd still
> > have to figure out something there.
> >
>
> Indeed, we really need a port of Log4j 2 to .NET.
>
>
> >
> > b. A bigger problem, at least I thought it was a bigger problem, was that
> > there would be confusion about what level to log the event at. I would
> > certainly not want to give an example as follows:
> >
> >
> > logger.debug(COMPLIANCE_MARKER, evnt);
> >
> >
> > or
> >
> >
> > logger.info(COMPLIANCE_MARKER, evnt);
> >
> >
> > or
> >
> >
> > logger.error(COMPLIANCE_MARKER, evnt);
> >
> >
> > ...
> >
>
> Think about: How important is this event? Are there different level of
> importance to the audience?
>
>
> >
> >
> > That just screams confusion to me.
> >
> >
> > 2. Use a dedicated logger to log all compliance events.
> >
> >
> > There were, as far as I could tell, a couple problems with this approach
> > also.
> >
> >
> > a. If everyone is using a single "well known" logger to log a specific
> > event category then I lose the logger "context" of who's logging the
> > event. As it stands now we're copying the logger name into a property we
> > call "eventSource".
> >
>
> A practice is to use one logger per class. Another is to use a higher-level
> logger to represent higher-level abstractions like a module.
>
>
> >
> >
> > b. You cannot turn on/off logging for a specific set of code. If it
> turns
> > out that we have some errant code which is using this well known logger
> > then we can't just turn off that code from logging as turning off the
> well
> > know logger would turn it off for everyone using it.
> >
> >
> > I did look into the EventLogger and initially that seemed promising as I
> > guess it logs any event you give it at the "all" level. However, as a
> well
> > known logger it suffers from the same issues above.
> >
> >
> > Now we're looking to add Business events. My initial thinking is that I
> > can do the same thing we did before. Add an additional custom level
> called
> > "Business" and expose methods for creating a business event.
>
>
> I would NOT create a custom level. Instead, I would use a Logger called
> "Business".
>
>
> > Though unlike the compliance event, the application teams would be
> > defining the schema more so than our framework team. Thus any method we
> > expose would just be used as a starting point for setting the common
> > properties. You would use another instance of our unix domain socket
> > appender for these business events and forward them to a different
> location
> > as business events would most likely have a different retention period
> than
> > compliance events. Plus you might also want them in a different store as
> > you may never need to query for both categories of events and thus no
> need
> > to query against a larger set of data.
> >
> >
> > In addition we're planning to capture centrally what we refer to as
> > diagnostic events: error, info, warn, debug, trace, etc. However, we may
> > need to separate these out into two different categories:
> > critical-diagnostic and noncritical-diagnostic.
>
>
> This could be a user case for custom levels IF one is more important than
> the other which it sure sounds like it is.
>
>
>
> > The reason is that we don't want the potential of a critical diagnostic
> > event, let's say an error, queued up behind potentially thousands of
> > non-critical diagnostic events. So you see, the category also defines
> > aspects on how we handle events at the source. We separate at the
> source
> > based on category as it seems a reasonable place to do so. Also, you may
> > want different flush times for different categories. We have a process
> > which buffers, compresses and sends events centrally so we have the
> notion
> > of flush time. The buffers are flushed when they become full or the
> flush
> > time elapses. Errors, since they are more critical in monitoring
> systems,
> > we'll most likely want to flush more often than say debug and trace
> events.
> >
> >
> > Sorry for the long winded explanation. Initially I was thinking that
> when
> > we create an event we'd set its category. However, now I'm thinking the
> > category should be set by the act of logging the event at a level. In
> some
> > cases we have a 1:1 mapping from level to category, eg. compliance level
> ->
> > compliance category. In some cases we have a many:1 mapping from level
> to
> > category, eg. error, info, warn -> critical-diagnostic.
> >
> >
> > We could also just define a single custom level, say "always_on", or
> > something like that. Then we provide some helper method to log our "new"
> > event categories (eg. business and compliance) at this level and have the
> > user specify the category, I guess similar to a marker.
> >
>
> Log4j has a level called ALL.
>
> I would really try to work hard to stay within the feature set before
> thinking about anything custom.
>
> If you can make critical-diagnostic and noncritical-diagnostic events to
> stock levels, that much the better.
>
> Gary
>
> >
> >
> > logEvent(Logger logger, String category, object evnt);
> >
> >
> > I guess it's similar to the EventLogger except that we're not using a
> > single well known logger and thus don't have the downsides of that which
> I
> > pointed out earlier.
> >
> >
> > Any thoughts/suggestions would be appreciated.
> >
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Nick
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: Mikael Ståldal <mi...@magine.com>
> > Sent: Wednesday, September 9, 2015 3:47 AM
> > To: Log4J Users List
> > Subject: Re: approach for defining loggers
> >
> > Then perhaps you should create your own facade for doing business event
> > logging, which could then forward them to Log4j in an appropriate way.
> >
> > On Wed, Sep 9, 2015 at 4:49 AM, Nicholas Duane <ni...@msn.com> wrote:
> >
> > > I was just about to reply to your previous email about using a single
> > > "business" logger, or some hierarchy of business loggers, to log
> business
> > > events and say that we might go that route. However, now that you
> > brought
> > > up the post from Ralph, which I just replied to, I'm thinking a logger
> > > won't work either for the same reason I listed in my reply to Ralph's
> > post.
> > >
> > > You could do:
> > >
> > > logger.info("Hello");
> > > logger.fatal("Hello");
> > > logger.error("Hello");
> > > ...
> > >
> > > It's confusing as there are n ways to log a business event that way and
> > > they will all do the same thing. Which one should a developer choose.
> > > Should I say pick any one, it doesn't matter?
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > Nick
> > >
> > > > Date: Tue, 8 Sep 2015 19:28:21 -0700
> > > > Subject: Re: approach for defining loggers
> > > > From: garydgregory@gmail.com
> > > > To: log4j-user@logging.apache.org
> > > >
> > > > Or
> > > > Logger logger = LogManager.getLogger("Business");
> > > > ...
> > > > logger.info("Hello");
> > > >
> > > > Gary
> > > >
> > > > On Tue, Sep 8, 2015 at 7:24 PM, Ralph Goers <
> > ralph.goers@dslextreme.com>
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Can you please clarify, “If we had some way to know an event is a
> > > business
> > > > > event we wouldn’t need level”? I do not understand how you can
> code
> > > > > logger.log(BUSINESS, msg) but you cannot code logger.info
> (BUSINESS,
> > > msg).
> > > > >
> > > > > Ralph
> > > > >
> > > > > > On Sep 8, 2015, at 6:09 PM, Nicholas Duane <ni...@msn.com>
> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I looked over that stackoverflow post and I'm still not seeing a
> > good
> > > > > match as a way for us to log our business events.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > A business event I guess is an event which extends whatever
> schema
> > we
> > > > > come up with for a business event. While an instance of this
> schema
> > > could
> > > > > be logged at any level, that really doesn't make sense in our
> > scenario,
> > > > > regardless of whether some marker was supplied. If we had some way
> > to
> > > know
> > > > > an event is a business event we wouldn't need level. We could of
> > > course
> > > > > add some property to our schema which indicates the 'category' of
> the
> > > > > event, 'business' being one such category. Instead we were
> thinking
> > we
> > > > > could just use level to indicate that an event is a business event.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > As I mentioned, we're looking to capture 'trace' level events to
> > one
> > > > > store, 'info' - 'fatal' level events to another store, and
> 'business'
> > > > > events to yet another store. For 'trace' and 'info' - 'fatal' it
> > seems
> > > > > reasonable to filter on level within the appender to get those
> events
> > > to
> > > > > the appropriate location. It seemed reasonable to do something
> > > similar for
> > > > > 'business'.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I also looked into the EventLogger but not sure that's
> appropriate.
> > > For
> > > > > one we lose the granularity to control a specific piece of code
> from
> > > > > generating business events. This is most likely a non-issue as I
> > have
> > > > > mentioned that we don't want to turn business logging off. The
> other
> > > is
> > > > > that we lose the name of the logger as it would be the same for
> > > everyone.
> > > > > Not sure this is that big a deal either as I guess you might be
> able
> > to
> > > > > capture component name, though I would rather distinguish using
> > logger
> > > name.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > > Nick
> > > > > >
> > > > > >> From: ralph.goers@dslextreme.com
> > > > > >> Subject: Re: approach for defining loggers
> > > > > >> Date: Mon, 7 Sep 2015 20:39:11 -0700
> > > > > >> To: log4j-user@logging.apache.org
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> I still don’t understand why you don’t want to use Markers. They
> > > were
> > > > > designed exactly for the use case you are describing.
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> You might set retention policies for debug vs info, error and
> > fatal,
> > > > > but a BUSINESS marker could cross-cut them all. That is exactly
> why
> > > it is
> > > > > NOT a level. IOW, it gives you a second dimension for filtering.
> Ceki
> > > > > invented Markers when he created SLF4J. For his point of view see
> > > > >
> > > http://stackoverflow.com/questions/16813032/what-is-
[http://cdn.sstatic.net/Sites/stackoverflow/img/apple-touch-icon@2.png?v=73d79a89bded&a]<http://stackoverflow.com/questions/16813032/what-is->
What is markers in Java Logging frameworks and that is a reason to use them?<http://stackoverflow.com/questions/16813032/what-is->
stackoverflow.com
First time I hear about markers when read: http://slf4j.org/faq.html I check available methods for Logger object: http://www.slf4j.org/api/org/slf4j/Logger.html http://logging.apache.org/log4j/2.x/
> > markers-in-java-logging-frameworks-and-that-is-a-reason-to-use-them
> > [http://cdn.sstatic.net/Sites/stackoverflow/img/apple-touch-
> > icon@2.png?v=73d79a89bded&a]<http://stackoverflow.com/
> > questions/16813032/what-is-markers-in-java-logging-
> > frameworks-and-that-is-a-reason-to-use-them>
> >
> > What is markers in Java Logging frameworks and that is a ...<
> > http://stackoverflow.com/questions/16813032/what-is-
> > markers-in-java-logging-frameworks-and-that-is-a-reason-to-use-them>
> > stackoverflow.com
> > This is a rehashed version my answer to the question "Best practices for
> > using Markers in SLF4J/Logback". Markers can be used to color or mark a
> > single log statement.
> >
> >
> > > > > <
> > > > >
> > > http://stackoverflow.com/questions/16813032/what-is-
> > markers-in-java-logging-frameworks-and-that-is-a-reason-to-use-them
> > [http://cdn.sstatic.net/Sites/stackoverflow/img/apple-touch-
> > icon@2.png?v=73d79a89bded&a]<http://stackoverflow.com/
> > questions/16813032/what-is-markers-in-java-logging-
> > frameworks-and-that-is-a-reason-to-use-them>
> >
> > What is markers in Java Logging frameworks and that is a ...<
> > http://stackoverflow.com/questions/16813032/what-is-
> > markers-in-java-logging-frameworks-and-that-is-a-reason-to-use-them>
> > stackoverflow.com
> > This is a rehashed version my answer to the question "Best practices for
> > using Markers in SLF4J/Logback". Markers can be used to color or mark a
> > single log statement.
> >
> >
> > > > > >.
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> Ralph
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>> On Sep 7, 2015, at 5:54 PM, Nicholas Duane <ni...@msn.com>
> > wrote:
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>> If I'm attempting to control all the logging from the
> > configuration
> > > > > and I don't know the complete set of loggers in my application as
> > there
> > > > > could be 100's or 1000's, wouldn't it be hard to separate events
> > based
> > > on
> > > > > loggers? It would seem much easier to separate events based on
> > > level. In
> > > > > addition, level might be a more reasonable approach for separating.
> > > For
> > > > > example, if I want to send all events to some big-data backend I
> > might
> > > want
> > > > > to separate out traces and debug from info to fatal as traces and
> > > debug are
> > > > > most likely less important from a systems management aspect. My
> > > retention
> > > > > period for traces and debug might be just a couple days. The
> > retention
> > > > > period for info to fatal could be 30 days. Business level might
> be 2
> > > > > years. Any system management notifications would probably be
> driven
> > > off of
> > > > > info to fatal events and not trace and debug events, which is
> another
> > > > > reason you might want to separate by level.
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>> Thanks,
> > > > > >>> Nick
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>>> Subject: Re: approach for defining loggers
> > > > > >>>> From: ralph.goers@dslextreme.com
> > > > > >>>> Date: Mon, 31 Aug 2015 08:50:58 -0700
> > > > > >>>> To: log4j-user@logging.apache.org
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>> A logging “Level” is a level of importance. That is why there
> > is a
> > > > > hierarchy. If you want informational messages then you also would
> > want
> > > > > warnings and errors.
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>> “BUSINESS” does not convey the same meaning. Rather, it is
> some
> > > sort
> > > > > of category, which is what Markers are for.
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>> Using the class name as the logger name is a convention. If
> you
> > > > > really want the class name, method name or line number then you
> > should
> > > be
> > > > > specifying that you want those from the logging event, rather than
> > the
> > > > > logger name. Unless location information is disabled you always
> have
> > > > > access to that information.
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>> In short, different loggers are used primarily as a way of
> > > grouping
> > > > > sets of messages - for example all org.hibernate events can be
> routed
> > > to a
> > > > > specific appender or turned off en masse. Levels are used to filter
> > out
> > > > > noise across a set of logging events. Markers are used to
> categorize
> > > > > logging events by arbitrary attributes.
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>> Ralph
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>>> On Aug 31, 2015, at 8:10 AM, Nicholas Duane <ni...@msn.com>
> > > wrote:
> > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > >>>>> Thanks for the feedback. I will look into Markers and MDC.
> > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > >>>>> With respect to using a separate logger, it would seem I
> would
> > > lose
> > > > > the information about what application code, eg. the class logger,
> is
> > > > > sourcing the event. We would like to have this information. On
> top
> > of
> > > > > that, it seems odd, maybe to me only, that for this new level we
> have
> > > our
> > > > > own logger. It seemed reasonable to me that this new event we want
> > to
> > > > > capture is just a new level. Just like a DEBUG event is different
> > > from an
> > > > > INFO event. If I define a BUSINESS level why would that not follow
> > the
> > > > > same design as the current levels? You wouldn't suggest having
> > > different
> > > > > loggers for TRACE DEBUG INFO WARN ERROR FATAL, would you? I think
> > one
> > > of
> > > > > the reasons someone on our side is suggesting I have separate
> loggers
> > > is
> > > > > that they think the overhead of filtering at the appender is going
> to
> > > have
> > > > > a noticeable impact. Our plan, at least the one I have now in my
> > > head, is
> > > > > that we'll have some number of appenders in the root. We'll then
> > > filter x
> > > > > < INFO events to a tracing appender, INFO <= x <= FATAL to a
> logging
> > > > > appender, and our custom level will go to another appender.
> > Thoughts?
> > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > >>>>> Thanks,
> > > > > >>>>> Nick
> > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>> Subject: Re: approach for defining loggers
> > > > > >>>>>> From: ralph.goers@dslextreme.com
> > > > > >>>>>> Date: Sat, 29 Aug 2015 20:59:36 -0700
> > > > > >>>>>> To: log4j-user@logging.apache.org
> > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>> On Aug 29, 2015, at 7:44 PM, Nicholas Duane <
> nickdu@msn.com>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>> I'm curious if there is a prescribed approach to defining
> > > > > loggers. Let me state what my assumption is. I assume that
> normally
> > > if
> > > > > some piece of code wants to log events/messages that it should
> > create a
> > > > > logger for itself. I guess a reasonable name to use is the class
> > name
> > > > > itself. In terms of logger configuration I would expect that no
> > > loggers
> > > > > are specified in the log4j configuration UNLESS is needs settings
> > other
> > > > > than the default. The root logger would specify the default
> > settings,
> > > eg.
> > > > > level and appenders. If some piece of code tied to a logger needs
> to
> > > > > enable tracing in order to debug an issue then you would add that
> > > logger to
> > > > > the configuration and set the level less specific for that logger.
> > Is
> > > this
> > > > > a typical and reasonable approach?
> > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>> What you describe here is the common convention. It is a
> > > reasonable
> > > > > approach.
> > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>> I asked because we have the need for a new type of event.
> To
> > > have
> > > > > this event flow to where we want it to flow the plan is to have a
> > > custom
> > > > > level and have all events at that level captured by a specific
> > > appender.
> > > > > My assumption was that for existing applications we'd just need to
> > add
> > > our
> > > > > appender to the root and add our custom level. The app would need
> to
> > > be
> > > > > modified to log our new event at the custom level. However,
> someone
> > > > > suggested that we could also create a separate logger for this
> event.
> > > My
> > > > > thinking is that while we don't ever want to turn off logging of
> this
> > > > > event, loggers represent "event sources", e.g the code raising the
> > > events
> > > > > and thus having multiple different pieces of code use the same
> logger
> > > > > wouldn't allow you to turn on/off logging from those different
> > > sections of
> > > > > code independently. I think the current configuration includes all
> > the
> > > > > loggers. Normally I would expect there to be many, on the order of
> > > 10's or
> > > > > 100's, loggers within an application. However, in the case I was
> > given
> > > > > there were only a handful because I think this handful is shared.
> So
> > > as I
> > > > > mentioned, this doesn't sound like an ideal design as you have less
> > > > > granularity on what you can turn on/off.
> > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>> You have a few options. Using a CustomLevel would not be the
> > > option
> > > > > I would choose. Creating a custom Logger will certainly work and
> > makes
> > > > > routing the message to the appropriate appender rather easy.
> Another
> > > > > approach is to use Markers. Markers are somewhat hierarchical so
> you
> > > can
> > > > > use them for a variety of purposes. If you look at how Log4j
> handles
> > > event
> > > > > logging it actually does both - it specifies EventLogger as the
> name
> > > of the
> > > > > logger to use and it uses Markers to identify the kind of event.
> > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>> A third option is to use the MDC or Logger properties. If
> you
> > do
> > > > > that then you can have information included in the actual logging
> > event
> > > > > that can affect how it is routed. I also built a system that uses
> the
> > > > > RFC5424 format so that the event could have lots of key/value pairs
> > to
> > > > > identify the events.
> > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>> Unfortunately, without knowing more details I don’t know
> that
> > I
> > > can
> > > > > give you a better idea on how I would implement it.
> > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>> Ralph
> > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------
> > ---------
> > > > > >>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> > > log4j-user-unsubscribe@logging.apache.org
> > > > > >>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail:
> > > log4j-user-help@logging.apache.org
> > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>>
> > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > > >>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: log4j-user-unsubscribe@
> > logging.apache.org
> > > > > >>>> For additional commands, e-mail:
> > > log4j-user-help@logging.apache.org
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------
> > ---------
> > > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: log4j-user-unsubscribe@logging.apache.org
> > > > > For additional commands, e-mail: log4j-user-help@logging.
> apache.org
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > E-Mail: garydgregory@gmail.com | ggregory@apache.org
> > > > Java Persistence with Hibernate, Second Edition
> > > > <http://www.manning.com/bauer3/>
> > > > JUnit in Action, Second Edition <http://www.manning.com/tahchiev/>
> > > > Spring Batch in Action <http://www.manning.com/templier/>
> > > > Blog: http://garygregory.wordpress.com
> > [https://s0.wp.com/i/blank.jpg]<http://garygregory.wordpress.com/>
> >
> > Gary Gregory<http://garygregory.wordpress.com/>
> > garygregory.wordpress.com
> > Software construction, the web, and other techs
> >
> >
> > > > Home: http://garygregory.com/
> > Gary Gregory<http://garygregory.com/>
> > garygregory.com
> > Rocket | Seagull . I am a Software Architect for Seagull Software, a
> > division of Rocket Software. Rocket Seagull specializes in tools and
> > expertise to modernize ...
> >
> >
> > > > Tweet! http://twitter.com/GaryGregory
> > Gary Gregory (@GaryGregory) | Twitter<http://twitter.com/GaryGregory>
> > twitter.com
> > The latest Tweets from Gary Gregory (@GaryGregory). Principal Software
> > Engineer, author: Java Persistence Hibernate https://t.co/3F8sYxc0oq,
> > JUnit https://t.co/yXU1DqAMDG, Spring Batch https://t.co/XwoMNoBxh7.
> > U.S.A.
> >
> >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > [image: MagineTV]
> >
> > *Mikael Ståldal*
> > Senior software developer
> >
> > *Magine TV*
> > mikael.staldal@magine.com
> > Regeringsgatan 25 | 111 53 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
> not
> > copy or deliver this message to anyone. In such case,
> > you should destroy this message and kindly notify the sender by reply
> > email.
> >
>
>
>
> --
> E-Mail: garydgregory@gmail.com | ggregory@apache.org
> Java Persistence with Hibernate, Second Edition
> <https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1617290459/ref=as_li_
> tl?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creative=9325&creativeASIN=1617290459&
> linkCode=as2&tag=garygregory-20&linkId=cadb800f39946ec62ea2b1af9fe6a2b8>
>
> <http:////ir-na.amazon-adsystem.com/e/ir?t=garygregory-20&l=am2&o=1&a=
> 1617290459>
> JUnit in Action, Second Edition
> <https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1935182021/ref=as_li_
> tl?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creative=9325&creativeASIN=1935182021&
> linkCode=as2&tag=garygregory-20&linkId=31ecd1f6b6d1eaf8886ac902a24de418%22
> >
>
> <http:////ir-na.amazon-adsystem.com/e/ir?t=garygregory-20&l=am2&o=1&a=
> 1935182021>
> Spring Batch in Action
> <https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1935182951/ref=as_li_
> tl?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creative=9325&creativeASIN=1935182951&
> linkCode=%7B%7BlinkCode%7D%7D&tag=garygregory-20&linkId=%7B%
> 7Blink_id%7D%7D%22%3ESpring+Batch+in+Action>
> <http:////ir-na.amazon-adsystem.com/e/ir?t=garygregory-20&l=am2&o=1&a=
> 1935182951>
> Blog: http://garygregory.wordpress.com
> Home: http://garygregory.com/
> Tweet! http://twitter.com/GaryGregory
>
--
Matt Sicker <bo...@gmail.com>
Re: approach for defining loggers
Posted by Matt Sicker <bo...@gmail.com>.
What about event logging? <
https://logging.apache.org/log4j/2.x/manual/eventlogging.html>
This sounds pretty similar to what you're asking about. You define a map
message essentially, plus your other requirements seem to be met here.
On 17 October 2016 at 21:46, Gary Gregory <ga...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 17, 2016 at 4:27 PM, Nicholas Duane <ni...@msn.com> wrote:
>
> > Sorry to revive this old thread. However, we're in the process of adding
> > support for other "categories" of events and thus I wanted to first take
> a
> > step back and try to ensure we're not convoluting things.
> >
> >
> > There was a requirement to log a "compliance" event under certain
> > conditions. We did not want to write our own logging framework and
> instead
> > decided to use existing off-the-shelf logging frameworks. We have
> > applications on both Linux/Java, Windows/.NET and Windows/Java.
> Initially
> > we chose log4net for Windows/.NET and log4j2 for Windows/Java and
> > Linux/Java. For these logging frameworks we wrote artifacts, appenders
> > basically, to help facilitate getting these events to our system. By the
> > way, our system will get the events centrally, possibly put them into a
> > relational database and also hand them off to another system which will
> get
> > them eventually to an HDFS backend. We also exposed methods for creating
> > this compliance event. The compliance event is basically a map. We
> chose
> > a map so that the event could also be extended by the application team in
> > case they needed to add additional properties which made sense for them.
> >
> >
> > We chose to create a custom level for this "compliance" event such that
> we
> > could filter out only these events and get them into our system. The
> > configuration example we created had our custom unix domain socket
> appender
> > added to the root logger. It also contained a filter which filtered out
> > any events that weren't compliance events. The level we chose for
> > "compliance" was less critical than off and more critical than fatal as
> we
> > wanted to ensure that as long as logging wasn't turned off altogether our
> > events would get logged.
> >
> >
> > I want to go over a few suggestions that were made and explain why I
> > didn't make use of those suggestions.
> >
> >
> > 1. Since our "compliance" level didn't fit within the "vernacular" of the
> > existing levels we should not define this custom level. Instead we
> should
> > look at using markers.
> >
>
> Yes, this is a use case for markers. The level should be used to note how
> important is each compliance event.
>
>
> >
> > I am not that familiar with markers but did look into them when they were
> > suggested. While I don't have anything against markers in general there
> > were some downsides as I saw it.
> >
> >
> > a. Markers are not available, as far as I know, in log4net so we'd still
> > have to figure out something there.
> >
>
> Indeed, we really need a port of Log4j 2 to .NET.
>
>
> >
> > b. A bigger problem, at least I thought it was a bigger problem, was that
> > there would be confusion about what level to log the event at. I would
> > certainly not want to give an example as follows:
> >
> >
> > logger.debug(COMPLIANCE_MARKER, evnt);
> >
> >
> > or
> >
> >
> > logger.info(COMPLIANCE_MARKER, evnt);
> >
> >
> > or
> >
> >
> > logger.error(COMPLIANCE_MARKER, evnt);
> >
> >
> > ...
> >
>
> Think about: How important is this event? Are there different level of
> importance to the audience?
>
>
> >
> >
> > That just screams confusion to me.
> >
> >
> > 2. Use a dedicated logger to log all compliance events.
> >
> >
> > There were, as far as I could tell, a couple problems with this approach
> > also.
> >
> >
> > a. If everyone is using a single "well known" logger to log a specific
> > event category then I lose the logger "context" of who's logging the
> > event. As it stands now we're copying the logger name into a property we
> > call "eventSource".
> >
>
> A practice is to use one logger per class. Another is to use a higher-level
> logger to represent higher-level abstractions like a module.
>
>
> >
> >
> > b. You cannot turn on/off logging for a specific set of code. If it
> turns
> > out that we have some errant code which is using this well known logger
> > then we can't just turn off that code from logging as turning off the
> well
> > know logger would turn it off for everyone using it.
> >
> >
> > I did look into the EventLogger and initially that seemed promising as I
> > guess it logs any event you give it at the "all" level. However, as a
> well
> > known logger it suffers from the same issues above.
> >
> >
> > Now we're looking to add Business events. My initial thinking is that I
> > can do the same thing we did before. Add an additional custom level
> called
> > "Business" and expose methods for creating a business event.
>
>
> I would NOT create a custom level. Instead, I would use a Logger called
> "Business".
>
>
> > Though unlike the compliance event, the application teams would be
> > defining the schema more so than our framework team. Thus any method we
> > expose would just be used as a starting point for setting the common
> > properties. You would use another instance of our unix domain socket
> > appender for these business events and forward them to a different
> location
> > as business events would most likely have a different retention period
> than
> > compliance events. Plus you might also want them in a different store as
> > you may never need to query for both categories of events and thus no
> need
> > to query against a larger set of data.
> >
> >
> > In addition we're planning to capture centrally what we refer to as
> > diagnostic events: error, info, warn, debug, trace, etc. However, we may
> > need to separate these out into two different categories:
> > critical-diagnostic and noncritical-diagnostic.
>
>
> This could be a user case for custom levels IF one is more important than
> the other which it sure sounds like it is.
>
>
>
> > The reason is that we don't want the potential of a critical diagnostic
> > event, let's say an error, queued up behind potentially thousands of
> > non-critical diagnostic events. So you see, the category also defines
> > aspects on how we handle events at the source. We separate at the
> source
> > based on category as it seems a reasonable place to do so. Also, you may
> > want different flush times for different categories. We have a process
> > which buffers, compresses and sends events centrally so we have the
> notion
> > of flush time. The buffers are flushed when they become full or the
> flush
> > time elapses. Errors, since they are more critical in monitoring
> systems,
> > we'll most likely want to flush more often than say debug and trace
> events.
> >
> >
> > Sorry for the long winded explanation. Initially I was thinking that
> when
> > we create an event we'd set its category. However, now I'm thinking the
> > category should be set by the act of logging the event at a level. In
> some
> > cases we have a 1:1 mapping from level to category, eg. compliance level
> ->
> > compliance category. In some cases we have a many:1 mapping from level
> to
> > category, eg. error, info, warn -> critical-diagnostic.
> >
> >
> > We could also just define a single custom level, say "always_on", or
> > something like that. Then we provide some helper method to log our "new"
> > event categories (eg. business and compliance) at this level and have the
> > user specify the category, I guess similar to a marker.
> >
>
> Log4j has a level called ALL.
>
> I would really try to work hard to stay within the feature set before
> thinking about anything custom.
>
> If you can make critical-diagnostic and noncritical-diagnostic events to
> stock levels, that much the better.
>
> Gary
>
> >
> >
> > logEvent(Logger logger, String category, object evnt);
> >
> >
> > I guess it's similar to the EventLogger except that we're not using a
> > single well known logger and thus don't have the downsides of that which
> I
> > pointed out earlier.
> >
> >
> > Any thoughts/suggestions would be appreciated.
> >
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Nick
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: Mikael Ståldal <mi...@magine.com>
> > Sent: Wednesday, September 9, 2015 3:47 AM
> > To: Log4J Users List
> > Subject: Re: approach for defining loggers
> >
> > Then perhaps you should create your own facade for doing business event
> > logging, which could then forward them to Log4j in an appropriate way.
> >
> > On Wed, Sep 9, 2015 at 4:49 AM, Nicholas Duane <ni...@msn.com> wrote:
> >
> > > I was just about to reply to your previous email about using a single
> > > "business" logger, or some hierarchy of business loggers, to log
> business
> > > events and say that we might go that route. However, now that you
> > brought
> > > up the post from Ralph, which I just replied to, I'm thinking a logger
> > > won't work either for the same reason I listed in my reply to Ralph's
> > post.
> > >
> > > You could do:
> > >
> > > logger.info("Hello");
> > > logger.fatal("Hello");
> > > logger.error("Hello");
> > > ...
> > >
> > > It's confusing as there are n ways to log a business event that way and
> > > they will all do the same thing. Which one should a developer choose.
> > > Should I say pick any one, it doesn't matter?
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > Nick
> > >
> > > > Date: Tue, 8 Sep 2015 19:28:21 -0700
> > > > Subject: Re: approach for defining loggers
> > > > From: garydgregory@gmail.com
> > > > To: log4j-user@logging.apache.org
> > > >
> > > > Or
> > > > Logger logger = LogManager.getLogger("Business");
> > > > ...
> > > > logger.info("Hello");
> > > >
> > > > Gary
> > > >
> > > > On Tue, Sep 8, 2015 at 7:24 PM, Ralph Goers <
> > ralph.goers@dslextreme.com>
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Can you please clarify, “If we had some way to know an event is a
> > > business
> > > > > event we wouldn’t need level”? I do not understand how you can
> code
> > > > > logger.log(BUSINESS, msg) but you cannot code logger.info
> (BUSINESS,
> > > msg).
> > > > >
> > > > > Ralph
> > > > >
> > > > > > On Sep 8, 2015, at 6:09 PM, Nicholas Duane <ni...@msn.com>
> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I looked over that stackoverflow post and I'm still not seeing a
> > good
> > > > > match as a way for us to log our business events.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > A business event I guess is an event which extends whatever
> schema
> > we
> > > > > come up with for a business event. While an instance of this
> schema
> > > could
> > > > > be logged at any level, that really doesn't make sense in our
> > scenario,
> > > > > regardless of whether some marker was supplied. If we had some way
> > to
> > > know
> > > > > an event is a business event we wouldn't need level. We could of
> > > course
> > > > > add some property to our schema which indicates the 'category' of
> the
> > > > > event, 'business' being one such category. Instead we were
> thinking
> > we
> > > > > could just use level to indicate that an event is a business event.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > As I mentioned, we're looking to capture 'trace' level events to
> > one
> > > > > store, 'info' - 'fatal' level events to another store, and
> 'business'
> > > > > events to yet another store. For 'trace' and 'info' - 'fatal' it
> > seems
> > > > > reasonable to filter on level within the appender to get those
> events
> > > to
> > > > > the appropriate location. It seemed reasonable to do something
> > > similar for
> > > > > 'business'.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I also looked into the EventLogger but not sure that's
> appropriate.
> > > For
> > > > > one we lose the granularity to control a specific piece of code
> from
> > > > > generating business events. This is most likely a non-issue as I
> > have
> > > > > mentioned that we don't want to turn business logging off. The
> other
> > > is
> > > > > that we lose the name of the logger as it would be the same for
> > > everyone.
> > > > > Not sure this is that big a deal either as I guess you might be
> able
> > to
> > > > > capture component name, though I would rather distinguish using
> > logger
> > > name.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > > Nick
> > > > > >
> > > > > >> From: ralph.goers@dslextreme.com
> > > > > >> Subject: Re: approach for defining loggers
> > > > > >> Date: Mon, 7 Sep 2015 20:39:11 -0700
> > > > > >> To: log4j-user@logging.apache.org
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> I still don’t understand why you don’t want to use Markers. They
> > > were
> > > > > designed exactly for the use case you are describing.
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> You might set retention policies for debug vs info, error and
> > fatal,
> > > > > but a BUSINESS marker could cross-cut them all. That is exactly
> why
> > > it is
> > > > > NOT a level. IOW, it gives you a second dimension for filtering.
> Ceki
> > > > > invented Markers when he created SLF4J. For his point of view see
> > > > >
> > > http://stackoverflow.com/questions/16813032/what-is-
> > markers-in-java-logging-frameworks-and-that-is-a-reason-to-use-them
> > [http://cdn.sstatic.net/Sites/stackoverflow/img/apple-touch-
> > icon@2.png?v=73d79a89bded&a]<http://stackoverflow.com/
> > questions/16813032/what-is-markers-in-java-logging-
> > frameworks-and-that-is-a-reason-to-use-them>
> >
> > What is markers in Java Logging frameworks and that is a ...<
> > http://stackoverflow.com/questions/16813032/what-is-
> > markers-in-java-logging-frameworks-and-that-is-a-reason-to-use-them>
> > stackoverflow.com
> > This is a rehashed version my answer to the question "Best practices for
> > using Markers in SLF4J/Logback". Markers can be used to color or mark a
> > single log statement.
> >
> >
> > > > > <
> > > > >
> > > http://stackoverflow.com/questions/16813032/what-is-
> > markers-in-java-logging-frameworks-and-that-is-a-reason-to-use-them
> > [http://cdn.sstatic.net/Sites/stackoverflow/img/apple-touch-
> > icon@2.png?v=73d79a89bded&a]<http://stackoverflow.com/
> > questions/16813032/what-is-markers-in-java-logging-
> > frameworks-and-that-is-a-reason-to-use-them>
> >
> > What is markers in Java Logging frameworks and that is a ...<
> > http://stackoverflow.com/questions/16813032/what-is-
> > markers-in-java-logging-frameworks-and-that-is-a-reason-to-use-them>
> > stackoverflow.com
> > This is a rehashed version my answer to the question "Best practices for
> > using Markers in SLF4J/Logback". Markers can be used to color or mark a
> > single log statement.
> >
> >
> > > > > >.
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> Ralph
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>> On Sep 7, 2015, at 5:54 PM, Nicholas Duane <ni...@msn.com>
> > wrote:
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>> If I'm attempting to control all the logging from the
> > configuration
> > > > > and I don't know the complete set of loggers in my application as
> > there
> > > > > could be 100's or 1000's, wouldn't it be hard to separate events
> > based
> > > on
> > > > > loggers? It would seem much easier to separate events based on
> > > level. In
> > > > > addition, level might be a more reasonable approach for separating.
> > > For
> > > > > example, if I want to send all events to some big-data backend I
> > might
> > > want
> > > > > to separate out traces and debug from info to fatal as traces and
> > > debug are
> > > > > most likely less important from a systems management aspect. My
> > > retention
> > > > > period for traces and debug might be just a couple days. The
> > retention
> > > > > period for info to fatal could be 30 days. Business level might
> be 2
> > > > > years. Any system management notifications would probably be
> driven
> > > off of
> > > > > info to fatal events and not trace and debug events, which is
> another
> > > > > reason you might want to separate by level.
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>> Thanks,
> > > > > >>> Nick
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>>> Subject: Re: approach for defining loggers
> > > > > >>>> From: ralph.goers@dslextreme.com
> > > > > >>>> Date: Mon, 31 Aug 2015 08:50:58 -0700
> > > > > >>>> To: log4j-user@logging.apache.org
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>> A logging “Level” is a level of importance. That is why there
> > is a
> > > > > hierarchy. If you want informational messages then you also would
> > want
> > > > > warnings and errors.
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>> “BUSINESS” does not convey the same meaning. Rather, it is
> some
> > > sort
> > > > > of category, which is what Markers are for.
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>> Using the class name as the logger name is a convention. If
> you
> > > > > really want the class name, method name or line number then you
> > should
> > > be
> > > > > specifying that you want those from the logging event, rather than
> > the
> > > > > logger name. Unless location information is disabled you always
> have
> > > > > access to that information.
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>> In short, different loggers are used primarily as a way of
> > > grouping
> > > > > sets of messages - for example all org.hibernate events can be
> routed
> > > to a
> > > > > specific appender or turned off en masse. Levels are used to filter
> > out
> > > > > noise across a set of logging events. Markers are used to
> categorize
> > > > > logging events by arbitrary attributes.
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>> Ralph
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>>> On Aug 31, 2015, at 8:10 AM, Nicholas Duane <ni...@msn.com>
> > > wrote:
> > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > >>>>> Thanks for the feedback. I will look into Markers and MDC.
> > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > >>>>> With respect to using a separate logger, it would seem I
> would
> > > lose
> > > > > the information about what application code, eg. the class logger,
> is
> > > > > sourcing the event. We would like to have this information. On
> top
> > of
> > > > > that, it seems odd, maybe to me only, that for this new level we
> have
> > > our
> > > > > own logger. It seemed reasonable to me that this new event we want
> > to
> > > > > capture is just a new level. Just like a DEBUG event is different
> > > from an
> > > > > INFO event. If I define a BUSINESS level why would that not follow
> > the
> > > > > same design as the current levels? You wouldn't suggest having
> > > different
> > > > > loggers for TRACE DEBUG INFO WARN ERROR FATAL, would you? I think
> > one
> > > of
> > > > > the reasons someone on our side is suggesting I have separate
> loggers
> > > is
> > > > > that they think the overhead of filtering at the appender is going
> to
> > > have
> > > > > a noticeable impact. Our plan, at least the one I have now in my
> > > head, is
> > > > > that we'll have some number of appenders in the root. We'll then
> > > filter x
> > > > > < INFO events to a tracing appender, INFO <= x <= FATAL to a
> logging
> > > > > appender, and our custom level will go to another appender.
> > Thoughts?
> > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > >>>>> Thanks,
> > > > > >>>>> Nick
> > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>> Subject: Re: approach for defining loggers
> > > > > >>>>>> From: ralph.goers@dslextreme.com
> > > > > >>>>>> Date: Sat, 29 Aug 2015 20:59:36 -0700
> > > > > >>>>>> To: log4j-user@logging.apache.org
> > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>> On Aug 29, 2015, at 7:44 PM, Nicholas Duane <
> nickdu@msn.com>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>> I'm curious if there is a prescribed approach to defining
> > > > > loggers. Let me state what my assumption is. I assume that
> normally
> > > if
> > > > > some piece of code wants to log events/messages that it should
> > create a
> > > > > logger for itself. I guess a reasonable name to use is the class
> > name
> > > > > itself. In terms of logger configuration I would expect that no
> > > loggers
> > > > > are specified in the log4j configuration UNLESS is needs settings
> > other
> > > > > than the default. The root logger would specify the default
> > settings,
> > > eg.
> > > > > level and appenders. If some piece of code tied to a logger needs
> to
> > > > > enable tracing in order to debug an issue then you would add that
> > > logger to
> > > > > the configuration and set the level less specific for that logger.
> > Is
> > > this
> > > > > a typical and reasonable approach?
> > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>> What you describe here is the common convention. It is a
> > > reasonable
> > > > > approach.
> > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>> I asked because we have the need for a new type of event.
> To
> > > have
> > > > > this event flow to where we want it to flow the plan is to have a
> > > custom
> > > > > level and have all events at that level captured by a specific
> > > appender.
> > > > > My assumption was that for existing applications we'd just need to
> > add
> > > our
> > > > > appender to the root and add our custom level. The app would need
> to
> > > be
> > > > > modified to log our new event at the custom level. However,
> someone
> > > > > suggested that we could also create a separate logger for this
> event.
> > > My
> > > > > thinking is that while we don't ever want to turn off logging of
> this
> > > > > event, loggers represent "event sources", e.g the code raising the
> > > events
> > > > > and thus having multiple different pieces of code use the same
> logger
> > > > > wouldn't allow you to turn on/off logging from those different
> > > sections of
> > > > > code independently. I think the current configuration includes all
> > the
> > > > > loggers. Normally I would expect there to be many, on the order of
> > > 10's or
> > > > > 100's, loggers within an application. However, in the case I was
> > given
> > > > > there were only a handful because I think this handful is shared.
> So
> > > as I
> > > > > mentioned, this doesn't sound like an ideal design as you have less
> > > > > granularity on what you can turn on/off.
> > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>> You have a few options. Using a CustomLevel would not be the
> > > option
> > > > > I would choose. Creating a custom Logger will certainly work and
> > makes
> > > > > routing the message to the appropriate appender rather easy.
> Another
> > > > > approach is to use Markers. Markers are somewhat hierarchical so
> you
> > > can
> > > > > use them for a variety of purposes. If you look at how Log4j
> handles
> > > event
> > > > > logging it actually does both - it specifies EventLogger as the
> name
> > > of the
> > > > > logger to use and it uses Markers to identify the kind of event.
> > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>> A third option is to use the MDC or Logger properties. If
> you
> > do
> > > > > that then you can have information included in the actual logging
> > event
> > > > > that can affect how it is routed. I also built a system that uses
> the
> > > > > RFC5424 format so that the event could have lots of key/value pairs
> > to
> > > > > identify the events.
> > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>> Unfortunately, without knowing more details I don’t know
> that
> > I
> > > can
> > > > > give you a better idea on how I would implement it.
> > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>> Ralph
> > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------
> > ---------
> > > > > >>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> > > log4j-user-unsubscribe@logging.apache.org
> > > > > >>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail:
> > > log4j-user-help@logging.apache.org
> > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>>
> > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > > >>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: log4j-user-unsubscribe@
> > logging.apache.org
> > > > > >>>> For additional commands, e-mail:
> > > log4j-user-help@logging.apache.org
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------
> > ---------
> > > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: log4j-user-unsubscribe@logging.apache.org
> > > > > For additional commands, e-mail: log4j-user-help@logging.
> apache.org
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > E-Mail: garydgregory@gmail.com | ggregory@apache.org
> > > > Java Persistence with Hibernate, Second Edition
> > > > <http://www.manning.com/bauer3/>
> > > > JUnit in Action, Second Edition <http://www.manning.com/tahchiev/>
> > > > Spring Batch in Action <http://www.manning.com/templier/>
> > > > Blog: http://garygregory.wordpress.com
> > [https://s0.wp.com/i/blank.jpg]<http://garygregory.wordpress.com/>
> >
> > Gary Gregory<http://garygregory.wordpress.com/>
> > garygregory.wordpress.com
> > Software construction, the web, and other techs
> >
> >
> > > > Home: http://garygregory.com/
> > Gary Gregory<http://garygregory.com/>
> > garygregory.com
> > Rocket | Seagull . I am a Software Architect for Seagull Software, a
> > division of Rocket Software. Rocket Seagull specializes in tools and
> > expertise to modernize ...
> >
> >
> > > > Tweet! http://twitter.com/GaryGregory
> > Gary Gregory (@GaryGregory) | Twitter<http://twitter.com/GaryGregory>
> > twitter.com
> > The latest Tweets from Gary Gregory (@GaryGregory). Principal Software
> > Engineer, author: Java Persistence Hibernate https://t.co/3F8sYxc0oq,
> > JUnit https://t.co/yXU1DqAMDG, Spring Batch https://t.co/XwoMNoBxh7.
> > U.S.A.
> >
> >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > [image: MagineTV]
> >
> > *Mikael Ståldal*
> > Senior software developer
> >
> > *Magine TV*
> > mikael.staldal@magine.com
> > Regeringsgatan 25 | 111 53 Stockholm, Sweden | 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
> > 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
> not
> > copy or deliver this message to anyone. In such case,
> > you should destroy this message and kindly notify the sender by reply
> > email.
> >
>
>
>
> --
> E-Mail: garydgregory@gmail.com | ggregory@apache.org
> Java Persistence with Hibernate, Second Edition
> <https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1617290459/ref=as_li_
> tl?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creative=9325&creativeASIN=1617290459&
> linkCode=as2&tag=garygregory-20&linkId=cadb800f39946ec62ea2b1af9fe6a2b8>
>
> <http:////ir-na.amazon-adsystem.com/e/ir?t=garygregory-20&l=am2&o=1&a=
> 1617290459>
> JUnit in Action, Second Edition
> <https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1935182021/ref=as_li_
> tl?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creative=9325&creativeASIN=1935182021&
> linkCode=as2&tag=garygregory-20&linkId=31ecd1f6b6d1eaf8886ac902a24de418%22
> >
>
> <http:////ir-na.amazon-adsystem.com/e/ir?t=garygregory-20&l=am2&o=1&a=
> 1935182021>
> Spring Batch in Action
> <https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1935182951/ref=as_li_
> tl?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creative=9325&creativeASIN=1935182951&
> linkCode=%7B%7BlinkCode%7D%7D&tag=garygregory-20&linkId=%7B%
> 7Blink_id%7D%7D%22%3ESpring+Batch+in+Action>
> <http:////ir-na.amazon-adsystem.com/e/ir?t=garygregory-20&l=am2&o=1&a=
> 1935182951>
> Blog: http://garygregory.wordpress.com
> Home: http://garygregory.com/
> Tweet! http://twitter.com/GaryGregory
>
--
Matt Sicker <bo...@gmail.com>
Re: approach for defining loggers
Posted by Gary Gregory <ga...@gmail.com>.
On Mon, Oct 17, 2016 at 4:27 PM, Nicholas Duane <ni...@msn.com> wrote:
> Sorry to revive this old thread. However, we're in the process of adding
> support for other "categories" of events and thus I wanted to first take a
> step back and try to ensure we're not convoluting things.
>
>
> There was a requirement to log a "compliance" event under certain
> conditions. We did not want to write our own logging framework and instead
> decided to use existing off-the-shelf logging frameworks. We have
> applications on both Linux/Java, Windows/.NET and Windows/Java. Initially
> we chose log4net for Windows/.NET and log4j2 for Windows/Java and
> Linux/Java. For these logging frameworks we wrote artifacts, appenders
> basically, to help facilitate getting these events to our system. By the
> way, our system will get the events centrally, possibly put them into a
> relational database and also hand them off to another system which will get
> them eventually to an HDFS backend. We also exposed methods for creating
> this compliance event. The compliance event is basically a map. We chose
> a map so that the event could also be extended by the application team in
> case they needed to add additional properties which made sense for them.
>
>
> We chose to create a custom level for this "compliance" event such that we
> could filter out only these events and get them into our system. The
> configuration example we created had our custom unix domain socket appender
> added to the root logger. It also contained a filter which filtered out
> any events that weren't compliance events. The level we chose for
> "compliance" was less critical than off and more critical than fatal as we
> wanted to ensure that as long as logging wasn't turned off altogether our
> events would get logged.
>
>
> I want to go over a few suggestions that were made and explain why I
> didn't make use of those suggestions.
>
>
> 1. Since our "compliance" level didn't fit within the "vernacular" of the
> existing levels we should not define this custom level. Instead we should
> look at using markers.
>
Yes, this is a use case for markers. The level should be used to note how
important is each compliance event.
>
> I am not that familiar with markers but did look into them when they were
> suggested. While I don't have anything against markers in general there
> were some downsides as I saw it.
>
>
> a. Markers are not available, as far as I know, in log4net so we'd still
> have to figure out something there.
>
Indeed, we really need a port of Log4j 2 to .NET.
>
> b. A bigger problem, at least I thought it was a bigger problem, was that
> there would be confusion about what level to log the event at. I would
> certainly not want to give an example as follows:
>
>
> logger.debug(COMPLIANCE_MARKER, evnt);
>
>
> or
>
>
> logger.info(COMPLIANCE_MARKER, evnt);
>
>
> or
>
>
> logger.error(COMPLIANCE_MARKER, evnt);
>
>
> ...
>
Think about: How important is this event? Are there different level of
importance to the audience?
>
>
> That just screams confusion to me.
>
>
> 2. Use a dedicated logger to log all compliance events.
>
>
> There were, as far as I could tell, a couple problems with this approach
> also.
>
>
> a. If everyone is using a single "well known" logger to log a specific
> event category then I lose the logger "context" of who's logging the
> event. As it stands now we're copying the logger name into a property we
> call "eventSource".
>
A practice is to use one logger per class. Another is to use a higher-level
logger to represent higher-level abstractions like a module.
>
>
> b. You cannot turn on/off logging for a specific set of code. If it turns
> out that we have some errant code which is using this well known logger
> then we can't just turn off that code from logging as turning off the well
> know logger would turn it off for everyone using it.
>
>
> I did look into the EventLogger and initially that seemed promising as I
> guess it logs any event you give it at the "all" level. However, as a well
> known logger it suffers from the same issues above.
>
>
> Now we're looking to add Business events. My initial thinking is that I
> can do the same thing we did before. Add an additional custom level called
> "Business" and expose methods for creating a business event.
I would NOT create a custom level. Instead, I would use a Logger called
"Business".
> Though unlike the compliance event, the application teams would be
> defining the schema more so than our framework team. Thus any method we
> expose would just be used as a starting point for setting the common
> properties. You would use another instance of our unix domain socket
> appender for these business events and forward them to a different location
> as business events would most likely have a different retention period than
> compliance events. Plus you might also want them in a different store as
> you may never need to query for both categories of events and thus no need
> to query against a larger set of data.
>
>
> In addition we're planning to capture centrally what we refer to as
> diagnostic events: error, info, warn, debug, trace, etc. However, we may
> need to separate these out into two different categories:
> critical-diagnostic and noncritical-diagnostic.
This could be a user case for custom levels IF one is more important than
the other which it sure sounds like it is.
> The reason is that we don't want the potential of a critical diagnostic
> event, let's say an error, queued up behind potentially thousands of
> non-critical diagnostic events. So you see, the category also defines
> aspects on how we handle events at the source. We separate at the source
> based on category as it seems a reasonable place to do so. Also, you may
> want different flush times for different categories. We have a process
> which buffers, compresses and sends events centrally so we have the notion
> of flush time. The buffers are flushed when they become full or the flush
> time elapses. Errors, since they are more critical in monitoring systems,
> we'll most likely want to flush more often than say debug and trace events.
>
>
> Sorry for the long winded explanation. Initially I was thinking that when
> we create an event we'd set its category. However, now I'm thinking the
> category should be set by the act of logging the event at a level. In some
> cases we have a 1:1 mapping from level to category, eg. compliance level ->
> compliance category. In some cases we have a many:1 mapping from level to
> category, eg. error, info, warn -> critical-diagnostic.
>
>
> We could also just define a single custom level, say "always_on", or
> something like that. Then we provide some helper method to log our "new"
> event categories (eg. business and compliance) at this level and have the
> user specify the category, I guess similar to a marker.
>
Log4j has a level called ALL.
I would really try to work hard to stay within the feature set before
thinking about anything custom.
If you can make critical-diagnostic and noncritical-diagnostic events to
stock levels, that much the better.
Gary
>
>
> logEvent(Logger logger, String category, object evnt);
>
>
> I guess it's similar to the EventLogger except that we're not using a
> single well known logger and thus don't have the downsides of that which I
> pointed out earlier.
>
>
> Any thoughts/suggestions would be appreciated.
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Nick
>
> ________________________________
> From: Mikael Ståldal <mi...@magine.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, September 9, 2015 3:47 AM
> To: Log4J Users List
> Subject: Re: approach for defining loggers
>
> Then perhaps you should create your own facade for doing business event
> logging, which could then forward them to Log4j in an appropriate way.
>
> On Wed, Sep 9, 2015 at 4:49 AM, Nicholas Duane <ni...@msn.com> wrote:
>
> > I was just about to reply to your previous email about using a single
> > "business" logger, or some hierarchy of business loggers, to log business
> > events and say that we might go that route. However, now that you
> brought
> > up the post from Ralph, which I just replied to, I'm thinking a logger
> > won't work either for the same reason I listed in my reply to Ralph's
> post.
> >
> > You could do:
> >
> > logger.info("Hello");
> > logger.fatal("Hello");
> > logger.error("Hello");
> > ...
> >
> > It's confusing as there are n ways to log a business event that way and
> > they will all do the same thing. Which one should a developer choose.
> > Should I say pick any one, it doesn't matter?
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Nick
> >
> > > Date: Tue, 8 Sep 2015 19:28:21 -0700
> > > Subject: Re: approach for defining loggers
> > > From: garydgregory@gmail.com
> > > To: log4j-user@logging.apache.org
> > >
> > > Or
> > > Logger logger = LogManager.getLogger("Business");
> > > ...
> > > logger.info("Hello");
> > >
> > > Gary
> > >
> > > On Tue, Sep 8, 2015 at 7:24 PM, Ralph Goers <
> ralph.goers@dslextreme.com>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Can you please clarify, “If we had some way to know an event is a
> > business
> > > > event we wouldn’t need level”? I do not understand how you can code
> > > > logger.log(BUSINESS, msg) but you cannot code logger.info(BUSINESS,
> > msg).
> > > >
> > > > Ralph
> > > >
> > > > > On Sep 8, 2015, at 6:09 PM, Nicholas Duane <ni...@msn.com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > I looked over that stackoverflow post and I'm still not seeing a
> good
> > > > match as a way for us to log our business events.
> > > > >
> > > > > A business event I guess is an event which extends whatever schema
> we
> > > > come up with for a business event. While an instance of this schema
> > could
> > > > be logged at any level, that really doesn't make sense in our
> scenario,
> > > > regardless of whether some marker was supplied. If we had some way
> to
> > know
> > > > an event is a business event we wouldn't need level. We could of
> > course
> > > > add some property to our schema which indicates the 'category' of the
> > > > event, 'business' being one such category. Instead we were thinking
> we
> > > > could just use level to indicate that an event is a business event.
> > > > >
> > > > > As I mentioned, we're looking to capture 'trace' level events to
> one
> > > > store, 'info' - 'fatal' level events to another store, and 'business'
> > > > events to yet another store. For 'trace' and 'info' - 'fatal' it
> seems
> > > > reasonable to filter on level within the appender to get those events
> > to
> > > > the appropriate location. It seemed reasonable to do something
> > similar for
> > > > 'business'.
> > > > >
> > > > > I also looked into the EventLogger but not sure that's appropriate.
> > For
> > > > one we lose the granularity to control a specific piece of code from
> > > > generating business events. This is most likely a non-issue as I
> have
> > > > mentioned that we don't want to turn business logging off. The other
> > is
> > > > that we lose the name of the logger as it would be the same for
> > everyone.
> > > > Not sure this is that big a deal either as I guess you might be able
> to
> > > > capture component name, though I would rather distinguish using
> logger
> > name.
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > Nick
> > > > >
> > > > >> From: ralph.goers@dslextreme.com
> > > > >> Subject: Re: approach for defining loggers
> > > > >> Date: Mon, 7 Sep 2015 20:39:11 -0700
> > > > >> To: log4j-user@logging.apache.org
> > > > >>
> > > > >> I still don’t understand why you don’t want to use Markers. They
> > were
> > > > designed exactly for the use case you are describing.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> You might set retention policies for debug vs info, error and
> fatal,
> > > > but a BUSINESS marker could cross-cut them all. That is exactly why
> > it is
> > > > NOT a level. IOW, it gives you a second dimension for filtering. Ceki
> > > > invented Markers when he created SLF4J. For his point of view see
> > > >
> > http://stackoverflow.com/questions/16813032/what-is-
> markers-in-java-logging-frameworks-and-that-is-a-reason-to-use-them
> [http://cdn.sstatic.net/Sites/stackoverflow/img/apple-touch-
> icon@2.png?v=73d79a89bded&a]<http://stackoverflow.com/
> questions/16813032/what-is-markers-in-java-logging-
> frameworks-and-that-is-a-reason-to-use-them>
>
> What is markers in Java Logging frameworks and that is a ...<
> http://stackoverflow.com/questions/16813032/what-is-
> markers-in-java-logging-frameworks-and-that-is-a-reason-to-use-them>
> stackoverflow.com
> This is a rehashed version my answer to the question "Best practices for
> using Markers in SLF4J/Logback". Markers can be used to color or mark a
> single log statement.
>
>
> > > > <
> > > >
> > http://stackoverflow.com/questions/16813032/what-is-
> markers-in-java-logging-frameworks-and-that-is-a-reason-to-use-them
> [http://cdn.sstatic.net/Sites/stackoverflow/img/apple-touch-
> icon@2.png?v=73d79a89bded&a]<http://stackoverflow.com/
> questions/16813032/what-is-markers-in-java-logging-
> frameworks-and-that-is-a-reason-to-use-them>
>
> What is markers in Java Logging frameworks and that is a ...<
> http://stackoverflow.com/questions/16813032/what-is-
> markers-in-java-logging-frameworks-and-that-is-a-reason-to-use-them>
> stackoverflow.com
> This is a rehashed version my answer to the question "Best practices for
> using Markers in SLF4J/Logback". Markers can be used to color or mark a
> single log statement.
>
>
> > > > >.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Ralph
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >>> On Sep 7, 2015, at 5:54 PM, Nicholas Duane <ni...@msn.com>
> wrote:
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> If I'm attempting to control all the logging from the
> configuration
> > > > and I don't know the complete set of loggers in my application as
> there
> > > > could be 100's or 1000's, wouldn't it be hard to separate events
> based
> > on
> > > > loggers? It would seem much easier to separate events based on
> > level. In
> > > > addition, level might be a more reasonable approach for separating.
> > For
> > > > example, if I want to send all events to some big-data backend I
> might
> > want
> > > > to separate out traces and debug from info to fatal as traces and
> > debug are
> > > > most likely less important from a systems management aspect. My
> > retention
> > > > period for traces and debug might be just a couple days. The
> retention
> > > > period for info to fatal could be 30 days. Business level might be 2
> > > > years. Any system management notifications would probably be driven
> > off of
> > > > info to fatal events and not trace and debug events, which is another
> > > > reason you might want to separate by level.
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> Thanks,
> > > > >>> Nick
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>> Subject: Re: approach for defining loggers
> > > > >>>> From: ralph.goers@dslextreme.com
> > > > >>>> Date: Mon, 31 Aug 2015 08:50:58 -0700
> > > > >>>> To: log4j-user@logging.apache.org
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>> A logging “Level” is a level of importance. That is why there
> is a
> > > > hierarchy. If you want informational messages then you also would
> want
> > > > warnings and errors.
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>> “BUSINESS” does not convey the same meaning. Rather, it is some
> > sort
> > > > of category, which is what Markers are for.
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>> Using the class name as the logger name is a convention. If you
> > > > really want the class name, method name or line number then you
> should
> > be
> > > > specifying that you want those from the logging event, rather than
> the
> > > > logger name. Unless location information is disabled you always have
> > > > access to that information.
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>> In short, different loggers are used primarily as a way of
> > grouping
> > > > sets of messages - for example all org.hibernate events can be routed
> > to a
> > > > specific appender or turned off en masse. Levels are used to filter
> out
> > > > noise across a set of logging events. Markers are used to categorize
> > > > logging events by arbitrary attributes.
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>> Ralph
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>>> On Aug 31, 2015, at 8:10 AM, Nicholas Duane <ni...@msn.com>
> > wrote:
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>> Thanks for the feedback. I will look into Markers and MDC.
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>> With respect to using a separate logger, it would seem I would
> > lose
> > > > the information about what application code, eg. the class logger, is
> > > > sourcing the event. We would like to have this information. On top
> of
> > > > that, it seems odd, maybe to me only, that for this new level we have
> > our
> > > > own logger. It seemed reasonable to me that this new event we want
> to
> > > > capture is just a new level. Just like a DEBUG event is different
> > from an
> > > > INFO event. If I define a BUSINESS level why would that not follow
> the
> > > > same design as the current levels? You wouldn't suggest having
> > different
> > > > loggers for TRACE DEBUG INFO WARN ERROR FATAL, would you? I think
> one
> > of
> > > > the reasons someone on our side is suggesting I have separate loggers
> > is
> > > > that they think the overhead of filtering at the appender is going to
> > have
> > > > a noticeable impact. Our plan, at least the one I have now in my
> > head, is
> > > > that we'll have some number of appenders in the root. We'll then
> > filter x
> > > > < INFO events to a tracing appender, INFO <= x <= FATAL to a logging
> > > > appender, and our custom level will go to another appender.
> Thoughts?
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>> Thanks,
> > > > >>>>> Nick
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>>> Subject: Re: approach for defining loggers
> > > > >>>>>> From: ralph.goers@dslextreme.com
> > > > >>>>>> Date: Sat, 29 Aug 2015 20:59:36 -0700
> > > > >>>>>> To: log4j-user@logging.apache.org
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>> On Aug 29, 2015, at 7:44 PM, Nicholas Duane <ni...@msn.com>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>> I'm curious if there is a prescribed approach to defining
> > > > loggers. Let me state what my assumption is. I assume that normally
> > if
> > > > some piece of code wants to log events/messages that it should
> create a
> > > > logger for itself. I guess a reasonable name to use is the class
> name
> > > > itself. In terms of logger configuration I would expect that no
> > loggers
> > > > are specified in the log4j configuration UNLESS is needs settings
> other
> > > > than the default. The root logger would specify the default
> settings,
> > eg.
> > > > level and appenders. If some piece of code tied to a logger needs to
> > > > enable tracing in order to debug an issue then you would add that
> > logger to
> > > > the configuration and set the level less specific for that logger.
> Is
> > this
> > > > a typical and reasonable approach?
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>> What you describe here is the common convention. It is a
> > reasonable
> > > > approach.
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>> I asked because we have the need for a new type of event. To
> > have
> > > > this event flow to where we want it to flow the plan is to have a
> > custom
> > > > level and have all events at that level captured by a specific
> > appender.
> > > > My assumption was that for existing applications we'd just need to
> add
> > our
> > > > appender to the root and add our custom level. The app would need to
> > be
> > > > modified to log our new event at the custom level. However, someone
> > > > suggested that we could also create a separate logger for this event.
> > My
> > > > thinking is that while we don't ever want to turn off logging of this
> > > > event, loggers represent "event sources", e.g the code raising the
> > events
> > > > and thus having multiple different pieces of code use the same logger
> > > > wouldn't allow you to turn on/off logging from those different
> > sections of
> > > > code independently. I think the current configuration includes all
> the
> > > > loggers. Normally I would expect there to be many, on the order of
> > 10's or
> > > > 100's, loggers within an application. However, in the case I was
> given
> > > > there were only a handful because I think this handful is shared. So
> > as I
> > > > mentioned, this doesn't sound like an ideal design as you have less
> > > > granularity on what you can turn on/off.
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>> You have a few options. Using a CustomLevel would not be the
> > option
> > > > I would choose. Creating a custom Logger will certainly work and
> makes
> > > > routing the message to the appropriate appender rather easy. Another
> > > > approach is to use Markers. Markers are somewhat hierarchical so you
> > can
> > > > use them for a variety of purposes. If you look at how Log4j handles
> > event
> > > > logging it actually does both - it specifies EventLogger as the name
> > of the
> > > > logger to use and it uses Markers to identify the kind of event.
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>> A third option is to use the MDC or Logger properties. If you
> do
> > > > that then you can have information included in the actual logging
> event
> > > > that can affect how it is routed. I also built a system that uses the
> > > > RFC5424 format so that the event could have lots of key/value pairs
> to
> > > > identify the events.
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>> Unfortunately, without knowing more details I don’t know that
> I
> > can
> > > > give you a better idea on how I would implement it.
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>> Ralph
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > > ------------------------------------------------------------
> ---------
> > > > >>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> > log4j-user-unsubscribe@logging.apache.org
> > > > >>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail:
> > log4j-user-help@logging.apache.org
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>>
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > >>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: log4j-user-unsubscribe@
> logging.apache.org
> > > > >>>> For additional commands, e-mail:
> > log4j-user-help@logging.apache.org
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ------------------------------------------------------------
> ---------
> > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: log4j-user-unsubscribe@logging.apache.org
> > > > For additional commands, e-mail: log4j-user-help@logging.apache.org
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > E-Mail: garydgregory@gmail.com | ggregory@apache.org
> > > Java Persistence with Hibernate, Second Edition
> > > <http://www.manning.com/bauer3/>
> > > JUnit in Action, Second Edition <http://www.manning.com/tahchiev/>
> > > Spring Batch in Action <http://www.manning.com/templier/>
> > > Blog: http://garygregory.wordpress.com
> [https://s0.wp.com/i/blank.jpg]<http://garygregory.wordpress.com/>
>
> Gary Gregory<http://garygregory.wordpress.com/>
> garygregory.wordpress.com
> Software construction, the web, and other techs
>
>
> > > Home: http://garygregory.com/
> Gary Gregory<http://garygregory.com/>
> garygregory.com
> Rocket | Seagull . I am a Software Architect for Seagull Software, a
> division of Rocket Software. Rocket Seagull specializes in tools and
> expertise to modernize ...
>
>
> > > Tweet! http://twitter.com/GaryGregory
> Gary Gregory (@GaryGregory) | Twitter<http://twitter.com/GaryGregory>
> twitter.com
> The latest Tweets from Gary Gregory (@GaryGregory). Principal Software
> Engineer, author: Java Persistence Hibernate https://t.co/3F8sYxc0oq,
> JUnit https://t.co/yXU1DqAMDG, Spring Batch https://t.co/XwoMNoBxh7.
> U.S.A.
>
>
> >
> >
>
>
>
> --
> [image: MagineTV]
>
> *Mikael Ståldal*
> Senior software developer
>
> *Magine TV*
> mikael.staldal@magine.com
> Regeringsgatan 25 | 111 53 Stockholm, Sweden | 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
> 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 not
> copy or deliver this message to anyone. In such case,
> you should destroy this message and kindly notify the sender by reply
> email.
>
--
E-Mail: garydgregory@gmail.com | ggregory@apache.org
Java Persistence with Hibernate, Second Edition
<https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1617290459/ref=as_li_tl?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creative=9325&creativeASIN=1617290459&linkCode=as2&tag=garygregory-20&linkId=cadb800f39946ec62ea2b1af9fe6a2b8>
<http:////ir-na.amazon-adsystem.com/e/ir?t=garygregory-20&l=am2&o=1&a=1617290459>
JUnit in Action, Second Edition
<https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1935182021/ref=as_li_tl?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creative=9325&creativeASIN=1935182021&linkCode=as2&tag=garygregory-20&linkId=31ecd1f6b6d1eaf8886ac902a24de418%22>
<http:////ir-na.amazon-adsystem.com/e/ir?t=garygregory-20&l=am2&o=1&a=1935182021>
Spring Batch in Action
<https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1935182951/ref=as_li_tl?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creative=9325&creativeASIN=1935182951&linkCode=%7B%7BlinkCode%7D%7D&tag=garygregory-20&linkId=%7B%7Blink_id%7D%7D%22%3ESpring+Batch+in+Action>
<http:////ir-na.amazon-adsystem.com/e/ir?t=garygregory-20&l=am2&o=1&a=1935182951>
Blog: http://garygregory.wordpress.com
Home: http://garygregory.com/
Tweet! http://twitter.com/GaryGregory