Wow... Nobody is using the one with Jetty ? It was a good option for me because I like to have separate processes for different things : A tomcat server for all the webapps of my server, Jetty Server with Solr and a drools server. Was it a stupid idea from the beginning ?
So my choice : [ ] I always use the JDK logging as bundled in solr.war, that's perfect [ ] I sometimes use log4j or another framework and am happy with re-packaging solr.war [ ] Give me solr.war WITHOUT an slf4j logger binding, so I can choose at deploy time [ ] Let me choose whether to bundle a binding or not at build time, using an ANT option [X] What's wrong with the "solr/example" Jetty? I never run Solr elsewhere! [ ] What? Solr can do logging? How cool! Victor 2011/5/17 Shawn Heisey <s...@elyograg.org> > On 5/16/2011 5:47 AM, Jan Høydahl wrote: > >> That's what happens if we ship solr.war without any pre-set logger binding >> - it's the binding provided in your app-server's classpath which will be >> used. >> > > I use the jetty that's bundled in the example, but with my own directory > structure that's a lot different, and a homegrown init.d script. I haven't > changed the binding in solr.war, but I have created a logging.properties > file to reduce it to WARNING by default and configured > java.util.logging.config.file in jetty.xml. > > If I understand what you've said above correctly, removing the binding in > solr.war would make it inherit the binding in jetty/tomcat/whatever, is that > right? That sounds like an awesome plan to me. The example jetty server > can be configured instead of solr.war. Once you've answered this, I can > submit my vote. > > A semi-related question ... is there any way to get jetty to log the entire > URL in its request log? Almost every request we send is truncated. Some of > our request URLs are nearly 20K in size. We've had to tune all the configs > for that to work. We are working on making them smaller, but that's not > going to happen quickly. I've done a lot of searching on this topic and > come up empty. > > Thanks, > Shawn > >
