|Mark Claassen||Feb 15, 2012 1:23 pm|
|Mark Thomas||Feb 15, 2012 1:32 pm|
|Mark Claassen||Feb 15, 2012 1:55 pm|
|Konstantin Kolinko||Feb 15, 2012 2:06 pm|
|Mark Claassen||Feb 16, 2012 7:16 am|
|Mark Claassen||Feb 16, 2012 1:05 pm||.zip|
|Konstantin Kolinko||Feb 16, 2012 1:11 pm|
|Mark Claassen||Feb 16, 2012 1:44 pm|
|Filip Hanik - Dev Lists||Feb 17, 2012 7:22 am|
|Francis Galiegue||Feb 17, 2012 7:54 am|
|Filip Hanik - Dev Lists||Feb 17, 2012 8:04 am|
|Rainer Jung||Feb 17, 2012 8:13 am|
|Christopher Schultz||Feb 19, 2012 9:20 am|
|Mark Thomas||Feb 19, 2012 9:49 am|
|Mark Claassen||Feb 19, 2012 6:53 pm|
|Christopher Schultz||Feb 21, 2012 8:37 am|
|Mark Claassen||Feb 24, 2012 8:49 am|
|Mark Claassen||Mar 27, 2012 6:29 am|
|Konstantin Kolinko||Mar 27, 2012 6:46 am|
|Mark Claassen||Mar 27, 2012 8:16 am|
|Mark Claassen||Mar 29, 2012 9:51 am|
|Konstantin Kolinko||Mar 29, 2012 1:43 pm|
|Mark Claassen||Apr 11, 2012 11:09 am|
|Subject:||Re: AccessLogValve enhancement|
|From:||Mark Claassen (mark...@gmail.com)|
|Date:||Feb 19, 2012 6:53:01 pm|
My initial motivation for doing this was in trying to figure out a way to have the logs automatically delete old ones eventually. I couldn't find a way to do it, looked at the source, and got a bit sidetracked. The rest is history On Feb 19, 2012 12:50 PM, "Mark Thomas" <mar...@apache.org> wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
On 19/02/2012 17:20, Christopher Schultz wrote:
On 2/15/12 4:33 PM, Mark Thomas wrote:
I also be +1 to considering making this the sole way AccessLogValve logging may be output.
The only possible reason why we wouldn't want to do this is that lots of users simply cannot figure out how to configure the loggers. Yes, it's really not all that hard and it's fairly well-documented, but at least with the output file name in the <Valve> attributes, there's no question where the log messages are going.
Philosophically, I'm not really sure why the flexibility of a full-featured logging system (JULI, log4j, etc.) is required for access logging: there's not much opportunity to use all the features they provide (log level filtering, log-message aggregation to log files and log-file multiplexing/splitting). Access logs typically log one thing (accesses), log it all the time, and always write to the same log file.
I'm not adverse to the patch, I just don't really see a need for it.
I was coming from the "I'd rather not maintain a bunch of code to solve a problem that the logging frameworks have already solved (threading, roll-over, output to multiple destinations)" angle. You know me, always happy to delete some code from the Tomcat code base.
My main point is that it is something worthy of discussion. And that is what we are doing.
Mark -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJPQTZBAAoJEBDAHFovYFnneXEQAJucbwt4zm/gTv093FuwfC0Y m6bJDiObPzaxuZNnWvaKKwM1XY4ZCGCkKV7H5xoZQIuMOnzMVm1Z/9qcuMiiuml+ UoUxAH1mZoKeyDmRxAgl7DhYYwVf3XPAnL+oI2K/XuxNRuJvehUQRm3ouxZeO81a gTKs3GYA/ZxVL0p7fJ1pPnh44xqg4ly7dDLaUx5dVZU6WJ/14pwuIwQCCLDu9C+r FvC2k/Bc13fXxrAzYuTiat83DztEMohRPXmyxVUnM4XG+eM1jMub31/4+6S9TrSt 2TX6lRmzw36khrYUKYWsmPJxsS+5rSVaaOfO5ekSUzLnuhshoAEUYe1pPzVTHd02 1a7njJuqzdKNjU4B1sfWivLXPspmhmK6pnUtmoIF98NRr1XsMe9O/4AhG7NUIpoX Ci7Nd1WygWUdn9evMxzcUhtrmkAbvcMuQ+71737Xn8OJKDzvdc0b6p6ZEgm8cHnB QHM+whU38Cb6Vy+vlyFQpwmJ8qolRrT2Ob76h22pZxm9PDQF18OWU6tqi3EabjU+ 9YV1fPPJNjrvNk9H27vaQIurrXMhX5yTZGb7PsVSinjXbq4zNEWZlcQSI5t+Pf5K 5AaRnxcptDIFcv+y9YFZv4ecqOPFHCUj03XSjRLBZd1V2vUdbkuTmpToLLo4Mwwp Rzy9If3xAw9+lSqza8hS =t+lP -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----