5 messages in org.apache.logging.log4j-userRe: web app dynamic configuration
FromSent OnAttachments
Derek SchergerJun 14, 2004 7:54 pm 
Derek SchergerJun 16, 2004 6:20 pm 
Jacob KjomeJun 16, 2004 9:07 pm 
Derek SchergerJun 16, 2004 9:43 pm 
Jacob KjomeJun 16, 2004 9:50 pm 
Actions with this message:
Paste this link in email or IM:
Paste this link in email or IM:
Atom feed for this thread
Paste this URL into your reader:
Subject:Re: web app dynamic configurationActions...
From:Jacob Kjome (ho@visi.com)
Date:Jun 16, 2004 9:07:29 pm
List:org.apache.logging.log4j-user

Have you looked at the ConfigurationServlet in the logging-log4j-sandbox?
http://cvs.apache.org/viewcvs.cgi/logging-log4j-sandbox/src/java/org/apache/log4j/servlet/ConfigurationServlet.java

You might want to verify whether your implementation provides all the capabilities of the one above. If yours is more sophisticated, then it might be a candidate for the sandbox. You might also think about patching the existing ConfigurationServlet to provide it with the (assumed) enhanced functionality that yours provides.

IMO, Some of this stuff might be better off being in a log4j-optional.jar so that the core log4j.jar is kept to a minimal size with only core logging functionality.

Jake

At 07:21 PM 6/16/2004 -0600, you wrote:

Hi folks, I've got a bit of a start on a servlet that allows dynamic configuration changes to log levels used by various Logger's. It already is quite useful for me as it allows changes to be made to a running/deployed web-app without restarting or re-deploying.

If this was included in the log4j.jar it would be a simple matter of adding the appropriate servlet and servlet-mapping elements to the application's web.xml to enable it whenever necessary.

If there is any general interest in such a thing I'd be happy to clean it up a bit more and then post it to the dev list, but I thought I'd start here to see what people might think. If this already exists in some other form then I guess I've already re-invented the wheel.

Please let me know either way. -- Cheers, Derek