You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@sling.apache.org by Carsten Ziegeler <cz...@apache.org> on 2013/09/20 08:35:09 UTC
[LogBack] Compatibility with current logging
Hi,
while trying out the new logback based logging implementation I stumbled
across the handling of the current configurations (pre logack impl): if
these are used, then if I understand it correctly, a logger is configured
with an appender and logger.setAdditive(false) is called which prevents
going up the category hierarchy and calling other appenders.
This is for compatibility, but imho defeats using a main feature of
logback: being able to call mulitple appenders.
Is my assumption so far correct?
So right now, it seems to me, that we either break compatiblity here (which
really shouldn't hurt) or require every user to migrate the configuration,
which seems pointless to me.
WDYT?
Regards
Carsten
--
Carsten Ziegeler
cziegeler@apache.org
Re: [LogBack] Compatibility with current logging
Posted by Carsten Ziegeler <cz...@apache.org>.
Hi Chetan,
yes, we should make the additivity configurable, defaulting to true for
compatiblity sounds good.
Thanks
Carsten
2013/9/22 Chetan Mehrotra <ch...@gmail.com>
> Hi Carsten,
>
> Initially I did not set additivity for OSGi configured loggers to
> true. That caused issue in some situations where a Sling based app
> like CQ defines multiple fine grained config which logs output from
> various loggers (request log, query log etc) to separate files. With
> new Logback stuff all the logs were also getting recorded in error.log
> (defined at root level) hence polluting it
>
> One thing we can do is add support for configuring additivity in OSGi
> config also which by default is true. And then have an upgrade plugin
> which can set the default value to false for config in an upgraded
> system.
>
> regards
> Chetan
> Chetan Mehrotra
>
>
> On Fri, Sep 20, 2013 at 12:05 PM, Carsten Ziegeler <cz...@apache.org>
> wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > while trying out the new logback based logging implementation I stumbled
> > across the handling of the current configurations (pre logack impl): if
> > these are used, then if I understand it correctly, a logger is configured
> > with an appender and logger.setAdditive(false) is called which prevents
> > going up the category hierarchy and calling other appenders.
> > This is for compatibility, but imho defeats using a main feature of
> > logback: being able to call mulitple appenders.
> > Is my assumption so far correct?
> >
> > So right now, it seems to me, that we either break compatiblity here
> (which
> > really shouldn't hurt) or require every user to migrate the
> configuration,
> > which seems pointless to me.
> >
> > WDYT?
> >
> > Regards
> > Carsten
> > --
> > Carsten Ziegeler
> > cziegeler@apache.org
>
--
Carsten Ziegeler
cziegeler@apache.org
Re: [LogBack] Compatibility with current logging
Posted by Chetan Mehrotra <ch...@gmail.com>.
Hi Carsten,
Initially I did not set additivity for OSGi configured loggers to
true. That caused issue in some situations where a Sling based app
like CQ defines multiple fine grained config which logs output from
various loggers (request log, query log etc) to separate files. With
new Logback stuff all the logs were also getting recorded in error.log
(defined at root level) hence polluting it
One thing we can do is add support for configuring additivity in OSGi
config also which by default is true. And then have an upgrade plugin
which can set the default value to false for config in an upgraded
system.
regards
Chetan
Chetan Mehrotra
On Fri, Sep 20, 2013 at 12:05 PM, Carsten Ziegeler <cz...@apache.org> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> while trying out the new logback based logging implementation I stumbled
> across the handling of the current configurations (pre logack impl): if
> these are used, then if I understand it correctly, a logger is configured
> with an appender and logger.setAdditive(false) is called which prevents
> going up the category hierarchy and calling other appenders.
> This is for compatibility, but imho defeats using a main feature of
> logback: being able to call mulitple appenders.
> Is my assumption so far correct?
>
> So right now, it seems to me, that we either break compatiblity here (which
> really shouldn't hurt) or require every user to migrate the configuration,
> which seems pointless to me.
>
> WDYT?
>
> Regards
> Carsten
> --
> Carsten Ziegeler
> cziegeler@apache.org