geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Aaron Mulder <>
Subject Re: Log Levels (INFO -> DEBUG)
Date Thu, 10 Nov 2005 19:28:28 GMT
On 11/10/05, Dain Sundstrom <> wrote:
> BTW, I suggest should you use log channels to divide the messages
> into the categories you listed below.  This will make it easy for an
> admin to turn off the garbage they are not interested in.

What do you mean by log channels?  That's not something I've done
before.  It would be great if we could group e.g. the "Geronimo" and
"Web" output to managed a bunch of stuff together, but I'm not sure
how to do that other than just changing the settings on a higher-level
package like "org.apache.geronimo".


> On Nov 9, 2005, at 10:14 PM, Aaron Mulder wrote:
> > I'd like to create a log level for "major events that the user should
> > know about that are not bad", such as a deployment.  They don't fit
> > into WARN or higher because they're not bad.  But I don't want them to
> > get lost in the noise that is currently our INFO.  Still, it seems
> > like creating a new log level is not necessarily the way to go.  (At
> > the moment I'm using System.out because that shows up even though our
> > default log level is WARN, but then it doesn't go into the server
> > log.)
> >
> > How would people feel if I make a concerted effort to change INFO
> > messages to DEBUG unless they are totally not predictable (not regular
> > startup or shutdown procedure, for example) and are relevant to the
> > end user (different than "relevent to the Geronimo developer")?  Then
> > I would change our default console log level to INFO.  So the only
> > INFO events I can think of (though there may be more once we start
> > evaluating them in detail) would be:
> >
> >  - server started
> >  - a deployment operation completed successfully
> >  - a configuration was started/stopped (really a subset of deployment
> > operations)
> >
> > Thanks,
> >     Aaron

View raw message