MDC looks like the way to go. Thanks for that info, David.
Erik
On Dec 17, 2008, at 3:13 PM, Smiley, David W. wrote:
You bet it does; that's the point!
Under the covers, I believe it's simply a thread-local hashmap.
Nothing is stored in the loggers the code is using. We just need
You bet it does; that's the point!
Under the covers, I believe it's simply a thread-local hashmap. Nothing is
stored in the loggers the code is using. We just need to be careful to remove
the variable from MDC when we're done.
~ David
On 12/17/08 3:09 PM, "Ryan McKinley" wrote:
but does t
but does this work in a multi-threaded environment?
if multiple requests are coming in on multiple threads, would it still
be accurate? Perhaps that depends on the underlying implementation?
adding the core to the MDC within a RequestHandler context seems
reasonable and minimally invasive.
On Dec 17, 2008, at 2:17 PM, Erik Hatcher wrote:
We get the Logger everytime we use it with something like:
Logger log = LoggerFactory.getLogger(classname+":"+core.getName() );
but with a dot separator and the core in front, since the logging
configuration treats dots as hierarchical logging
I propose that MDC or NDC be used instead. I prefer MDC. I've written some
server-side multi-threaded code where each Thread would run a job and I wanted
the job name in the logs.
http://www.slf4j.org/api/org/slf4j/MDC.html
At some early point when Solr receives a request, you simply store a
On Dec 17, 2008, at 12:24 PM, Ryan McKinley wrote:
I'm not sure I understand...
are you suggesting that rather then configuring our logger like this:
static Logger log = LoggerFactory.getLogger(SolrCore.class);
We get the Logger everytime we use it with something like:
Logger log = LoggerFact
On Wed, Dec 17, 2008 at 10:54 PM, Ryan McKinley wrote:
> I'm not sure I understand...
>
> are you suggesting that rather then configuring our logger like this:
> static Logger log = LoggerFactory.getLogger(SolrCore.class);
>
> We get the Logger everytime we use it with something like:
> Logger l
I'm not sure I understand...
are you suggesting that rather then configuring our logger like this:
static Logger log = LoggerFactory.getLogger(SolrCore.class);
We get the Logger everytime we use it with something like:
Logger log = LoggerFactory.getLogger(classname+":"+core.getName() );
That
at the root of the issue is that logging uses a static logger:
static Logger log = LoggerFactory.getLogger(SolrCore.class);
i don't know of any minimally invasive way to get get around this...
On Dec 17, 2008, at 10:22 AM, Marc Sturlese wrote:
I am thinking in doing a hack to specify the lo
Can't we log with the core as part of the context of the logger,
rather than just the classname? This would give you core logging
granularity just by config, rather than scraping.
Yes?
Erik
On Dec 17, 2008, at 9:47 AM, Ryan McKinley wrote:
As is, the log classes are statically bou
I am thinking in doing a hack to specify the log path of the solr cores in
solr.xml.
Would like to do something like:
...
Any advice about how should I start?
Thanks in advance
ryantxu wrote:
>
> As is, the log classes are statically bound to the class,
As is, the log classes are statically bound to the class, so they are
configured for the entire VM context.
Off hand i can't think of any good work around either. The only thing
to note is that most core specific log messages include the core name
as a prefix: [core0] ...
ryan
On Dec 1
12 matches
Mail list logo
