Thank you im sorry when I find a job ill pay u On Mon, Apr 19, 2021, 4:48 PM Sixx XT <sixx5...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Do I need to disable drive > > On Mon, Apr 19, 2021, 4:41 PM Tim Perry <tim.v...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> After further thought, I am threading the context name into the location >> where the StatusConfiguration creates the StatusConsoleListener and >> registering the context name there. >> >> In addition, if the new logger would write to a destination other than >> standard out or standard error then I do not reconfigure the existing >> logger in StatusConfiguration.configureExistingStatusConsoleListener(), >> instead I have the >> >> I am now correctly closing the status logger when the context is stopped. >> >> I'll push the changes to github after I do a full build >> >> On Mon, Apr 19, 2021 at 12:17 PM Tim Perry <tim.v...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> > I rewrote this to shut down listeners based on the contextName. In >> > testing, I discovered that the StatusConsoleListener is created in >> > StatusConfiguration, but neither StatusConfiguration nor >> > StatusConsoleListener receive events to indicate when they should stop. >> > >> > It appears that only one StatusConsoleListener object is ever created >> and >> > it is never shut down. Looking at the api XmlConfiguration, it calls >> > StatusConfiguration.initilize() which then either changes the log level >> to >> > match the config being parsed or creates a new StatusLogger directed to >> the >> > file indicated in the XML configuration. Unless I'm reading the code >> wrong, >> > this means that the status logger output location depends on if a >> previous >> > app was loaded. If so, then that location will continue to receive >> > StatusLogger messages but at the log level of the new application's >> config. >> > Am I reading this correctly? If I am, is this the intended behaviour? >> > >> > >> > >> > On Wed, Feb 24, 2021 at 8:29 AM Matt Sicker <boa...@gmail.com> wrote: >> > >> >> The StatusLogger has various listeners attached. I think adding and >> >> removing listeners on startup and shutdown of a LoggerContext might be >> >> a potential way to do this? >> >> >> >> On Wed, 24 Feb 2021 at 01:07, Tim Perry <tim.v...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> > >> >> > Ralph, >> >> > >> >> > Thanks for the review. Yep, that *is* a problem...I knew it was a >> >> singleton >> >> > but didn't think through the use case you describe. This is ironic >> >> since a >> >> > few months ago I recommended that one of my clients bundle log4j in >> each >> >> > war rather than on Tomcat's classpath so there would be less chance >> of >> >> > instances walking on each other. Sigh. >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > What is the correct behaviour if: >> >> > >> >> > - log4j is on Tomcat's classpath >> >> > - App A has status_A.log >> >> > - App B has status_B.log >> >> > >> >> > Now assume both apps are started. At this point I assume we should be >> >> > writing to both status_A.log and status_B.log. Now we stop App B. I >> >> assume >> >> > we should stop writing to status_B.log but not status_A.log. >> Further, I >> >> > assume that if both apps are unloaded from Tomcat, but Tomcat is left >> >> > running, then the status logger should send its messages to standard >> >> out. >> >> > If my assumptions are correct, then maybe we need to keep track of >> what >> >> > file, if any, each web app requested messages to be written to. On >> top >> >> of >> >> > that, I think we need a Callback in Log4j's shutdown registry and we >> >> need >> >> > to run it last. >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > In some ways this seems like an XY problem. Is the correct question >> how >> >> do >> >> > we reconfigure the logging when a web app shuts down? Or should it >> be: >> >> > should the StatusLogger be shared across multiple LoggerContexts? >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > This will be more interesting than I first realized! >> >> > >> >> > Tim >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > On Tue, Feb 23, 2021 at 10:38 PM Ralph Goers < >> >> ralph.go...@dslextreme.com> >> >> > wrote: >> >> > >> >> > > Yeah, I started a review but then I thought it probably would be >> >> better to >> >> > > respond here. >> >> > > >> >> > > You are on the right track but there is a problem. StatusLogger is >> a >> >> > > singleton - there is one instance anchored in a static. You are >> >> invoking >> >> > > the shutdown logic from the shutdown of the LoggerContext which is >> >> not a >> >> > > singleton. Log4j supports multiple LoggerContexts in an >> application. >> >> For >> >> > > example, if you are old school and running multiple web >> applications >> >> in >> >> > > Tomcat and have Log4j on Tomcat’s class path then you will have >> >> multiple >> >> > > LoggerContexts with a single StatusLogger. So if one web app gets >> >> > > redeployed then its LoggerContext will be shutdown and a new one >> >> created >> >> > > all while another app is continuing to run. >> >> > > >> >> > > If you’ll notice the StatusConfiguration class in log4j-core tries >> to >> >> > > accommodate for this during startup, but it doesn’t do anything at >> >> > > shutdown. StatusLogger currently isn’t smart enough to handle one >> app >> >> > > writing to one destination and a different on writing to a >> different >> >> one. >> >> > > Since StatusLogger is a singleton it can’t really know which app a >> >> status >> >> > > log event is for. >> >> > > >> >> > > There are a couple of ways I can think of to handle this but none >> of >> >> them >> >> > > is perfect. >> >> > > Modify StatusConfiguration to keep track of what each >> >> StatusConfiguration >> >> > > set up and reset to whatever the prior StatusConfiguration had. The >> >> problem >> >> > > with this is that applications might shutdown in a different order >> >> than >> >> > > they were started, so figuring out what the prior configuration was >> >> could >> >> > > be difficult. >> >> > > Add the call to prepareToStop() as a new Callback to Log4j’s >> shutdown >> >> > > registry. However, this callback would need to run last. The >> shutdown >> >> > > registry currently doesn’t support a way to specify the order of >> >> callbacks. >> >> > > Support for that would need to be added for this to work. >> >> > > >> >> > > Ralph >> >> > > >> >> > > > On Feb 23, 2021, at 10:48 PM, Tim Perry <tim.v...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >> > > > >> >> > > > Ralph, >> >> > > > >> >> > > > I implemented what you suggested. Feel free to suggest >> improvements. >> >> > > > https://github.com/apache/logging-log4j2/pull/469 >> >> > > > >> >> > > > Tim >> >> > > > >> >> > > > On Tue, Feb 23, 2021 at 2:14 PM Ralph Goers < >> >> ralph.go...@dslextreme.com> >> >> > > > wrote: >> >> > > > >> >> > > >> I would suggest that if it is writing to something other than >> >> System.out >> >> > > >> that it be redirected back there and then the OutputStream be >> >> closed. >> >> > > >> However, I’ve not looked at the code recently so I am not sure >> >> what it >> >> > > >> takes to do that. >> >> > > >> >> >> > > >> Ralph >> >> > > >> >> >> > > >>> On Feb 23, 2021, at 2:22 PM, Tim Perry <tim.v...@gmail.com> >> >> wrote: >> >> > > >>> >> >> > > >>> Thank you, Volkan. >> >> > > >>> >> >> > > >>> I'm not quite ready to submit a PR. I was hoping some of you >> with >> >> more >> >> > > >>> knowledge of log4j-core would weigh in on what we should do >> about >> >> > > >> shutting >> >> > > >>> down the StatusLogger. >> >> > > >>> >> >> > > >>> My thought is we choose one of two options: >> >> > > >>> >> >> > > >>> Option A: >> >> > > >>> 1) check if any StatusLogger is writing to standard out or >> >> standard >> >> > > >> error. >> >> > > >>> If not, add one. >> >> > > >>> 2) stop any loggers that don't write to standard out or >> standard >> >> error. >> >> > > >>> >> >> > > >>> Option B: >> >> > > >>> 1) stop any loggers that don't write to standard out or >> standard >> >> error. >> >> > > >>> >> >> > > >>> Option A could cause the log messages to be split across two >> >> > > >> destinations, >> >> > > >>> but they all get sent somewhere. Option B could lose shutdown >> >> messages >> >> > > >> when >> >> > > >>> writing to a file, but by that point it may not matter. >> >> > > >>> >> >> > > >>> If any of you have a better idea, I'm happy to implement it. If >> >> nobody >> >> > > >>> weighs in on the best option, I'll probably submit Option A as >> a >> >> pull >> >> > > >>> request on Friday or Saturday. >> >> > > >>> >> >> > > >>> Tim >> >> > > >>> >> >> > > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> >> > >> >
