Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-tomcat-users-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 4841 invoked from network); 27 Feb 2009 20:24:53 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (140.211.11.2) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 27 Feb 2009 20:24:53 -0000 Received: (qmail 85939 invoked by uid 500); 27 Feb 2009 20:24:40 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-tomcat-users-archive@tomcat.apache.org Received: (qmail 85907 invoked by uid 500); 27 Feb 2009 20:24:40 -0000 Mailing-List: contact users-help@tomcat.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: "Tomcat Users List" Delivered-To: mailing list users@tomcat.apache.org Received: (qmail 85896 invoked by uid 99); 27 Feb 2009 20:24:40 -0000 Received: from nike.apache.org (HELO nike.apache.org) (192.87.106.230) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Fri, 27 Feb 2009 12:24:40 -0800 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=2.2 required=10.0 tests=HTML_MESSAGE,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: local policy) Received: from [192.77.186.17] (HELO mx3.progress.com) (192.77.186.17) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Fri, 27 Feb 2009 20:24:30 +0000 Received: from mx3.progress.com (127.0.0.1) by mx3.progress.com (MlfMTA v3.2r9) id hl15vs0171so for ; Fri, 27 Feb 2009 15:24:09 -0500 (envelope-from ) Received: from progress.com ([192.233.92.16]) by mx3.progress.com (SonicWALL 6.2.2.1073) with ESMTP; Fri, 27 Feb 2009 15:24:08 -0500 Received: from NTEXFE02.bedford.progress.com (ntexfe02 [10.128.10.26]) by progress.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id n1RKO8Pl016067 for ; Fri, 27 Feb 2009 15:24:08 -0500 (EST) Received: from MAIL03.bedford.progress.com ([172.16.2.59]) by NTEXFE02.bedford.progress.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Fri, 27 Feb 2009 15:24:07 -0500 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C99919.37B85AF5" Subject: Servlet API loggin in tomcat 5.5 vs. tomcat 6 Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2009 15:23:16 -0500 Message-ID: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: Servlet API loggin in tomcat 5.5 vs. tomcat 6 thread-index: AcmZGTjH9KNu5/o3SOq/WGLsWpawJQ== From: "Guillaume Cauchon" To: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 27 Feb 2009 20:24:07.0764 (UTC) FILETIME=[577A6140:01C99919] X-Mlf-Version: 6.2.2.1073 X-Mlf-UniqueId: o200902272024080299930 X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org ------_=_NextPart_001_01C99919.37B85AF5 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I'm actually working on a distributed and one of the component is a webapp. The development for the webapp started on tomcat 5.5, but for technical reason we decided to upgrade to tomcat 6 recently... =20 However we realized the logging configuration doesn't seams to be working the same way! The same webapp running on 5.5 and 6 doesn't produce the same amount of logging: everything that was produced by the JspServlet (Servlet API) is missing now; and I guess a lot more is also missing, but we didn't saw it yet... =20 The logging is based on log4j, using a xml configuration file. We are using DOMConfigurator to intitialise and monitor the log4j configuration which can be modified at runtime. =20 I know the Common Logging if the basis of the whole logging architecture in tomcat, is there something I need to know about the tomcat 6 release that might be related to this issue? =20 ________________________________ Guillaume Cauchon | DataDirect Technologies inc. -email:=20 guillaume.cauchon@datadirect.com =20 -mobile:=20 418.952-7357 -work:=20 418.649-1551 =20 ------_=_NextPart_001_01C99919.37B85AF5--