Hi Ralph, First, thank you for your quick answer! :)
I just wrote a simple project to show you this behavior I am adding 2 filters one should be global(at least I think) and other to the logger. Project: https://github.com/dennysfredericci/log4j2-filter-spike Main class: https://github.com/dennysfredericci/log4j2-filter-spike/blob/master/src/main/java/br/com/fredericci/Main.java The output will be: Global Filter: 0 Logger Filter: 3 For some reason, the filter on the logger was called 3 times and the global filter was never called. Is there any mistake on how I am adding the global filter? Why it is not working? If a global filter is called just once will be perfect for my use case. Thank you! Regards, Dennys Fredericci On 2020/08/04 21:18:57, Ralph Goers <ralph.go...@dslextreme.com> wrote: > A Global Filter can be called once during the isEnabled check and then again > when the event is actually logged. But Filters that are attached to Loggers, > Appender-Refs and Appenders should only be called once. I am not sure why > thought would be any different with an Async appender. > > Ralph > > > > > On Aug 4, 2020, at 12:55 PM, Dennys Fredericci <den...@fredericci.com.br> > > wrote: > > > > Hi All, > > > > There is a library micrometer(https://micrometer.io/) used to collect > > metrics, one of these metrics is a log rate, several calls for log.info, > > log.debug, log.warn, etc. > > > > Micrometer implements a > > Filter(org.apache.logging.log4j.core.filter.AbstractFilter) and for each > > call to the method filter we increment a counter. > > > > After some research, I noticed that the method filter can be called > > multiple times especially when an Async appender is configured and in this > > case, we have a wrong logging rate. An application called on time the > > method log.info("Test..") but the rate can easily be 2 instead of 1. > > > > I tried to implement a solution but still not correct. > > > > Now I am wondering if Filter still feasible for this use case, I am quite > > convinced that will be not possible to use Filter to solve this. > > > > So, now my question is: Is there another way to get the number calls for > > each logging level? Or is there a workaround that can be implemented on the > > Filter implementation to do the correct count? > > > > Regards, > > Dennys Fredericci > > > > > > > > >
