Yes, all async logging, either with AsyncAppender or with Async Loggers will
set `endOfBatch` to true on all events where the queue becomes empty.
(Shameless plug) Every java main() method deserves http://picocli.info
> On Jan 10, 2018, at 19:17, Mikael Ståldal wrote:
>
> And the same applies
And the same applies to AsyncAppender, right?
On 2018-01-10 00:14, Remko Popma wrote:
Log4j2 internally uses this with async logging: with async logging, the
“producer” is the async logging queue. The queue “knows“ whether it’s empty or
whether more events will follow immediately and it will s
Yes we have examples of batching, but the point is that the batch is managed by
the appender, so there is no need for a new method in the Appender interface,
which was the original point of this thread.
Ralph
> On Jan 9, 2018, at 2:14 PM, Matt Sicker wrote:
>
> There are other examples of han
Here is the smart batching link:
https://mechanical-sympathy.blogspot.jp/2011/10/smart-batching.html?m=1
Remko
(Shameless plug) Every java main() method deserves http://picocli.info
On Wed, Jan 10, 2018 at 8:14 Remko Popma wrote:
> I don’t think that creating a AbstractBatchedAppender/Manager
I don’t think that creating a AbstractBatchedAppender/Manager would help with
batching.
Log4j2 currently already provides core batching support for appender
implementors with the `LogEvent.endOfBatch` attribute.
LogEvent producers, if they know that more events will follow, should set this
a
There are other examples of handling batched log events. The JDBC appender
supports it due to <
https://github.com/apache/logging-log4j2/blob/master/log4j-core/src/main/java/org/apache/logging/log4j/core/appender/db/AbstractDatabaseManager.java
>
This makes me think it might be worthwhile to extra
I guess that you are supposed to use LogEvent.isEndOfBatch() to know
when to flush log events to final destination.
Our file and stream based appenders do that. See
https://github.com/apache/logging-log4j2/blob/master/log4j-core/src/main/java/org/apache/logging/log4j/core/appender/RandomAccessF
Also, note that each event has to be individually filtered so processing a
batch probably won’t work properly.
Ralph
> On Jan 9, 2018, at 8:04 AM, Ralph Goers wrote:
>
> The actual code in the AsyncAppender does:
>
> public void append(final LogEvent logEvent) {
> if (!isStarted()) {
>
The actual code in the AsyncAppender does:
public void append(final LogEvent logEvent) {
if (!isStarted()) {
throw new IllegalStateException("AsyncAppender " + getName() + " is not
active");
}
final Log4jLogEvent memento = Log4jLogEvent.createMemento(logEvent,
includeLocation
On 2018-01-09 14:46, Apache wrote:
> The Logging api only allows you to log a single event at a time so it
> doesn?019t make sense for an appender to have a method that accepts multiple
> events since it can?019t happen. That said, appenders can queue the events
> and send them downstream in ba
On 2018-01-09 14:46, Apache wrote:
> The Logging api only allows you to log a single event at a time so it
> doesnât make sense for an appender to have a method that accepts multiple
> events since it canât happen. That said, appenders can queue the events and
> send them downstream in b
The Logging api only allows you to log a single event at a time so it doesn’t
make sense for an appender to have a method that accepts multiple events since
it can’t happen. That said, appenders can queue the events and send them
downstream in batches. I believe some of the appenders do that now
Hi,
currently writing my first appender, and wondering about the following:
The Appender interface specifies a method for logging a single event.
However, my custom Appender would greatly benefit in terms of
performance, if I could implement an additional method
append(LogEvent[] events). Now, I
13 matches
Mail list logo
