Hi Tom,
What behavior would you like to see (keeping in mind that AbstractSessionLog
doesn't have a name, and is used only for a limited pre-session-creation
configuration).
BTW, now that we create a session and name it at the time we create the loggers,
can we get rid of the AbstractSessionLog instance altogether?
thanks,
-marina
Tom Ware wrote:
> Hi Marina,
>
> The reason I am concerned (and the reason I am slow getting back to
> you) is that all of the following make it so there is a session name is
> a "reserved word" since the namespace for a session is
> oracle.toplink.essentials.<sessionName>
>
> - oracle.toplink.essentials.default
> - oracle.toplink.essentials.default-logger
> - oracle.toplink.essentials.non-session
>
> I am trying to figure out if there is a reasonable way to solve this
> problem and avoid having a session name that behaves differently (no
> matter how obscure the name ends up being). In addition, I am hoping to
> keep the name spaces so they are intuitive.
>
> -Tom
>
> Marina Vatkina wrote:
>
>> Tom,
>>
>> One more thought: may be we should assign AbstractSessionLog namespace
>> called oracle.toplink.essentials.non-session or something to that extent?
>> It's not a default logger, and a different name will clarify a lot of
>> confusion.
>>
>> thanks,
>> -marina
>>
>> Marina Vatkina wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Hi Tom,
>>>
>>> Tom Ware wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> Hi Marina,
>>>>
>>>> Comments inline.
>>>>
>>>> Marina Vatkina wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Hi Tom,
>>>>>
>>>>> About the name (your other email) - we can use something else other
>>>>> than
>>>>> "default", or we can document that a session named "default" will have
>>>>> the same log level as the default logger (whether explicitly specified
>>>>> or not).
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I have a strong preference towards a solution that does not not make
>>>> any potential session names into "reserved words" and will required
>>>> some convincing that a solution that makes any session name into a
>>>> "reserved word" is the only reasonable way forward.
>>>>
>>>
>>> No problem. Worth discussing ;)
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>> Here are my thoughts about the options:
>>>>>
>>>>> Tom Ware wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> I am still brainstorming for ideas. So far here's all I have come
>>>>>> up with.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 1. Do not change the namespace
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> We know it causes all types of problems if PU properties apply to
>>>>> the AbstractSessionLog.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> That's why I am trying to figure out an alternate way of dealing
>>>> with the default logger stored on AbstractSessionLog.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> 2. Add a property that allows the default TopLink logging level to
>>>>>> be set. (toplink.logging.level.default or something like that).
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Do you mean for the AbstractSessionLog to ignore the current
>>>>> toplink.logging.level specified in a PU and use the default unless
>>>>> explicitly specified by the toplink.logging.level.default?
>>>>> Can be an option.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Your interpretation of my suggestion is correct. I am open to other
>>>> suggestions as well.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> 3. Document the new property as the only way to change the logging
>>>>>> level for pre-session-creation configuration (i.e.the only way to
>>>>>> change the logging level of the default logger on
>>>>>> AbstractSessionLog). Also, document the fact that setting the
>>>>>> value of this property in any persistence unit could affect other
>>>>>> persistence units and will override any parent logging setting.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> No, it shouldn't override the parent, i.e.
>>>>> toplink.logging.level.default
>>>>> will not affect
>>>>> toplink.logging.level.<very-long-constructed-session-name>.
>>>>> This was the reason to add its own name to the default logger.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> First, in case my phrasing was not clear, by "override the parent" I
>>>> simply mean using that property to specify the logging level for
>>>> "oracle.toplink.essentials" - not changing the logging level on the
>>>> parent logger.
>>>>
>>>
>>> "oracle.toplink.essentials" is the parent logger for all other loggers.
>>> The goal is to never set the level on that particular logger from any
>>> of the PU properties.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> Assuming my initial phrasing was adequately understood, I am not
>>>> sure I understand what you are saying here. If someone specifies
>>>> toplink.logging.level.default, they are explicitly setting a logging
>>>> level. Why shouldn't that set the level for
>>>> "oracle.toplink.essentials"?
>>>>
>>>
>>> Setting the level for "oracle.toplink.essentials" explicitly breaks GF
>>> integration, as it will not be possible to reset it to defaults
>>> dynamically:
>>> the default value is not set on "oracle.toplink.essentials" - it's a
>>> property
>>> that is not present for the defaults, but by Java logging defaults, i.e.
>>> "" logger in our case.
>>>
>>>
>>> The one strange thing this setting does is
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> it potentially has side effects for the next user of the default
>>>> log. This setting is one that is likely to be only used while
>>>> debugging (and infrequently, even then) due to the fact that there
>>>> are very few messages at a more granular level that INFO(the
>>>> default) that are written to the default logger. As a result, I am
>>>> willing to live with that side effect as long as we adequately
>>>> document it.
>>>>
>>>> What if we change the setting to toplink.logging.level.config or
>>>> toplink.logging.level.default-logger, and ensure it does not have
>>>> any effect on the session loggers.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Yes, we can have toplink.logging.level.default-logger mapped to the
>>> "oracle.toplink.essentials.default-logger" namespace, which will not
>>> affect
>>> any session loggers, but will use the same global defaults if not set
>>> explicitly.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> 4. Only use the existing property (toplink.logging.level) to set
>>>>>> the level of the session's log.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> This will require a redeploy to apply a change, and doesn't solve the
>>>>> problem of having separate log levels for separate PUs.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> What conditions cause us to need a redeploy for a change?
>>>>
>>>
>>> If a user once specified a toplink.logging.level in the persistence.xml,
>>> they can't just remove that property to get the defaults. They need to
>>> redeploy either way if they change persistence.xml, but they'll need to
>>> either reset it to INFO, or restart the server after the redeploy to get
>>> the defaults.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> If toplink.logging.level sets only the level of the sessions log.
>>>> (i.e. for session "session1", only the logger in namespace
>>>> "oracle.toplink.essentials.session1" is affected), doesn't this
>>>> solve the problem of having separate log levels for separate PUs?
>>>> Please forgive me if I am being missing something obvious.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Yes. It does. I think we now go in circles around the following
>>> proposal:
>>>
>>> 1. Existing toplink.logging.level property to affect only session
>>> loggers.
>>> 2. Introduce toplink.logging.level.default-logger property that will
>>> affect
>>> AbstractSessionLog only and will be global for all PUs in this VM.
>>>
>>> As we didn't discuss the categories behavior so far,
>>> 3. It's not possible to choose for a user a separate log level for
>>> separate
>>> category.
>>>
>>> Do you agree?
>>>
>>> thanks,
>>> -marina
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> -Tom
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> I haven't completely thought it out, but figured I pass on the
>>>>>> idea to start the discussion.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> yes, let's sort it out (and document the result).
>>>>>
>>>>> thanks,
>>>>> -marina
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> -Tom
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Tom Ware wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hi Marina,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thanks for the lesson:)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> As far as changing the namespace for the default logger to
>>>>>>> "oracle.toplink.essentials.default", I have a concern. Isn't
>>>>>>> this the same namespace as a session called "default"? I believe
>>>>>>> this could cause problems.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I still need to do some thinking about the issue of how we deal
>>>>>>> with the logging level of the default Logger. It seems to me to
>>>>>>> potentially be an issue regardless of what we do about this bug.
>>>>>>> I'll let you know what I come up with.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I think Wonsoek has replied to your question about the default
>>>>>>> logging levels. Please let me know if you have additional
>>>>>>> questions.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> -Tom
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Marina Vatkina wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Tom, Wonseok,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Yes, I should've extracted the relevant portion into
>>>>>>>> setServerSessionName
>>>>>>>> (don't know why I missed half of the code :( - sorry about that).
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Yes, it should be ".default".
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The categories are appended to each name space, and I'm not sure
>>>>>>>> the categories
>>>>>>>> are implemented correctly now in the JavaLog if they are
>>>>>>>> expected to be
>>>>>>>> specified by the user. But let's discuss this further, and see
>>>>>>>> where is the
>>>>>>>> right solution.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Here is the problem that I'm trying to solve.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Java loggers use parent's level if it is not explicitly set, but
>>>>>>>> use its own
>>>>>>>> level otherwise. There is no way to unset a level, once it's set
>>>>>>>> explicitly.
>>>>>>>> The namespace is registered with the LogMgr in the VM, which
>>>>>>>> means that as long
>>>>>>>> as you use the same name, you are getting the same Java logger
>>>>>>>> instance.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Now, if a log level is specified in a persistence.xml as a
>>>>>>>> property, we do set
>>>>>>>> it currently on the default logger by processing
>>>>>>>> AbstractSessionLog in
>>>>>>>> initOrUpdateLogging (which without ".default" equals to the
>>>>>>>> overall TopLink namespace of "oracle.toplink.essentials") , i.e.
>>>>>>>> any other PU after that will
>>>>>>>> use that level (if it doesn't specify it explicitly), or will
>>>>>>>> override it again
>>>>>>>> with its own setting if it is different. Which means that 2 PUs
>>>>>>>> can't have 2
>>>>>>>> different logging levels.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Adding ".default" will give AbstractSessionLog it's own sub-space.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Setting the ServerSession name much earlier, gives each PU it's
>>>>>>>> own sub-space.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Now the subcategories (I had never tested, how would it work in
>>>>>>>> GF): the
>>>>>>>> current code constructs the corresponding namespace as:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> sessionNameSpace = DEFAULT_TOPLINK_NAMESPACE + "." + sessionName;
>>>>>>>> String loggerNameSpace = sessionNameSpace + "." + loggerCategory;
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It might be better to have it as
>>>>>>>> DEFAULT_TOPLINK_NAMESPACE + "." + loggerCategory + sessionName;
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Right?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I need to think more about changing the session name - we can't
>>>>>>>> unregister
>>>>>>>> a logger from a LogMgr, so changing a name will mean creating
>>>>>>>> new loggers,
>>>>>>>> right?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Tom, about the new useParentLevel() - will it be OFF or INFO by
>>>>>>>> default,
>>>>>>>> if you don't specify the level in SE? Can you check?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> thanks,
>>>>>>>> -marina
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Tom Ware wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Marina and Wonsoek,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> - Can you explain a bit more why you need to append ".default"
>>>>>>>>> to the default log namespace. How will this work in conjuction
>>>>>>>>> with the logger categories? How exactly is the current
>>>>>>>>> namespace causing issues? Will users have to now specify
>>>>>>>>> ".default" on all their categories? (e.g.
>>>>>>>>> oracle.toplink.essentials.default.sql) To me, this seems a bit
>>>>>>>>> less intuitive than being able to set the logging levels
>>>>>>>>> without the "default".
>>>>>>>>> - BTW: Assuming we can sort out the "default", I think the
>>>>>>>>> namespace is currently missing a dot. It looks like it is
>>>>>>>>> oracle.toplink.essentialsdefault.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Additional comments inline:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Wonseok Kim wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Hi Marina,
>>>>>>>>>> comments in line...
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 10/12/06, *Marina Vatkina* <Marina.Vatkina_at_sun.com
>>>>>>>>>> <mailto:Marina.Vatkina_at_sun.com>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Tom, Wonseok,
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Please review the changes.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Major points are described below in the IT note. Other diffs:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> a) renamed initServerSession() to setServerSessionName(), removed
>>>>>>>>>> from it the
>>>>>>>>>> call to assignCMP3Policy(), and changed the javadoc comments as
>>>>>>>>>> they didn't
>>>>>>>>>> reflect the actual things happening in the method anyway;
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> b) changed to call assignCMP3Policy() directly in place of the
>>>>>>>>>> previous
>>>>>>>>>> initServerSession() call;
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> c) moved the call to setServerSessionName() to the beginning of
>>>>>>>>>> predeploy (see
>>>>>>>>>> the reason #3 below).
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Tom, do you see any problem with registering the session by name
>>>>>>>>>> so early? I
>>>>>>>>>> couldn't find any code in the EntityManagerSetupImpl that would
>>>>>>>>>> suggest that
>>>>>>>>>> it can be.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> 1. Original initServerSession() does another things. Those
>>>>>>>>>> calls session.getDescriptors() but this is filled in predeploy
>>>>>>>>>> phase. Therefore I think this should not be called before
>>>>>>>>>> predeploy finishes.
>>>>>>>>>> How about making a new method "initSessionName()" by
>>>>>>>>>> extracting only the following code?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> // use default session name if none is provided
>>>>>>>>>> String name =
>>>>>>>>>> EntityManagerFactoryProvider.getConfigPropertyAsString(TopLinkProperties.SESSION_NAME,
>>>>>>>>>> m);
>>>>>>>>>> if(name == null) {
>>>>>>>>>> if (persistenceUnitInfo.getPersistenceUnitRootUrl() !=
>>>>>>>>>> null){
>>>>>>>>>> name =
>>>>>>>>>> persistenceUnitInfo.getPersistenceUnitRootUrl().toString() +
>>>>>>>>>> "-" + persistenceUnitInfo.getPersistenceUnitName();
>>>>>>>>>> } else {
>>>>>>>>>> name = persistenceUnitInfo.getPersistenceUnitName();
>>>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>>>> session.setName(name);
>>>>>>>>>> // session.log(SessionLog.FINEST,
>>>>>>>>>> SessionLog.PROPERTIES, "property_value_default", new
>>>>>>>>>> Object[]{TopLinkProperties.SESSION_NAME , name});
>>>>>>>>>> addSessionToGlobalSessionManager();
>>>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I think Wonsoek's suggestion is a good one. Let's only move
>>>>>>>>> the session name initialization code, and not the other code.
>>>>>>>>> The initServerSession() method does more than initialize the name.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> 2. (To Tom) Is it safe to call
>>>>>>>>>> addSessionToGlobalSessionManager() in this early step (with
>>>>>>>>>> uninitialized session)?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> There is really one issue with this call we should resolve.
>>>>>>>>> Details in the next item.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> 3. What if SESSION_NAME is set by user explicitly? Now
>>>>>>>>>> user-specified name is set later by updateSessionName() which
>>>>>>>>>> is called from updateServerSession() in deploy phase. I think
>>>>>>>>>> we need to set this user-specified name in "initSessionName()"
>>>>>>>>>> also. But current code appears to allow changing session name
>>>>>>>>>> in deploy(). Then should logger should change? I'm confused.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> When we are integrated with the Server, I believe, predeploy
>>>>>>>>> and deploy will be called with the same properties and
>>>>>>>>> therefore, the call to updateSessionName() should result in the
>>>>>>>>> same name as the call to initSessionName().
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> In SE, the predeploy occurs before the call to
>>>>>>>>> createEntityManagerFactory(name, properties) and the deploy
>>>>>>>>> occurs after. The properties specified in the argument to
>>>>>>>>> createEntityManagerFactory() that method need to be
>>>>>>>>> considered. That is why the call is made in deploy as well.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> As a result of this, there is an issue we have to resolve in SE
>>>>>>>>> if we are calling addSessionToGlobalSessionManager() before the
>>>>>>>>> deploy phase.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> - What happens if we initialize with a session name, and the
>>>>>>>>> call to createEntityManagerFactory() has a different name. In
>>>>>>>>> this case, we cannot simply change the session name because
>>>>>>>>> sessions are hashed in SessionManager based on their name, so
>>>>>>>>> changing the name of the session will result in lookup problems.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> 4. (To Tom) This is another concern but related to #3. What is
>>>>>>>>>> the behaviour of session name property? If I specify the same
>>>>>>>>>> session name of two applications or two persistence units,
>>>>>>>>>> could I share ServerSession? But it doesn't seem to do it,
>>>>>>>>>> because in EntityManagerSetupImpl.predeploy() session is
>>>>>>>>>> always newly created like below regardless of the session name.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> session = new ServerSession(...);
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> If session name property has no effect in JPA, I think it
>>>>>>>>>> should be removed and then there will be no confusion in #3.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Session name is used to store the session we use on the
>>>>>>>>> SessionManager. We expect the session name to be unique. If
>>>>>>>>> it is not, an exception will be thrown when the session is
>>>>>>>>> added to the SessionManager. Take a look at the
>>>>>>>>> addSessionToGlobalSessionManager() method.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> d) I added an api to the SessionLog to allow for #1 below.
>>>>>>>>>> Another
>>>>>>>>>> option would
>>>>>>>>>> be to check for the log level being OFF, but it's more time
>>>>>>>>>> consuming to go up
>>>>>>>>>> the logging chain every time.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Then in Java SE, the default level of JavaLogger becomes INFO
>>>>>>>>>> while CONFIG is a default for DefaultLogger. It appears to be
>>>>>>>>>> inconsistent for the default level. I don't know why the
>>>>>>>>>> default level has been CONFIG for TopLink logger, how about
>>>>>>>>>> changing it to INFO consistently. Then we don't need to set
>>>>>>>>>> default level explicitly and to introduce new method
>>>>>>>>>> "userParentLevel()" to SessionLog interface.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> protected void initOrUpdateLogging(boolean init, Map m,
>>>>>>>>>> SessionLog log) {
>>>>>>>>>> String logLevelString =
>>>>>>>>>> PropertiesHandler.getPropertyValueLogDebug
>>>>>>>>>> (TopLinkProperties.LOGGING_LEVEL, m, session);
>>>>>>>>>> // Don't need to set default level. It will follow the default
>>>>>>>>>> level policy of the logger. INFO for DefaultSessionLog. Parent
>>>>>>>>>> logger's level(INFO normally) for JavaLog.
>>>>>>>>>> /*
>>>>>>>>>> if(logLevelString == null && init) {
>>>>>>>>>> logLevelString =
>>>>>>>>>> PropertiesHandler.getDefaultPropertyValueLogDebug(TopLinkProperties.LOGGING_LEVEL,
>>>>>>>>>> session);
>>>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>>>> */
>>>>>>>>>> if (logLevelString != null) {
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> log.setLevel(AbstractSessionLog.translateStringToLoggingLevel(logLevelString));
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I just talked to our product manager and we agree that changing
>>>>>>>>> the JPA default to be the same as the default logger. (INFO)
>>>>>>>>> Does that remove the need for the useParentLevel() method?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> If we make this change, I think we should change the logging in
>>>>>>>>> translateOldProperties and warnOldProperties to INFO.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> -Tom
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Regards
>>>>>>>>>> - Wonseok
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Let me know if you see any problems with the proposed changes. I
>>>>>>>>>> tested with
>>>>>>>>>> 2 PUs being deployed, one with the explicit log level, and
>>>>>>>>>> another
>>>>>>>>>> without it.
>>>>>>>>>> I also tested dynamic change of the log levels, and server
>>>>>>>>>> restart. All seem
>>>>>>>>>> to work correctly.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> thanks,
>>>>>>>>>> -marina
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> -------- Original Message --------
>>>>>>>>>> Subject: [Issue 1107] Logger defined by a property doesn't work
>>>>>>>>>> Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2006 01:56:44 +0000
>>>>>>>>>> From: mvatkina_at_dev.java.net <mailto:mvatkina_at_dev.java.net>
>>>>>>>>>> To: mvatkina_at_dev.java.net <mailto:mvatkina_at_dev.java.net>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> https://glassfish.dev.java.net/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=1107
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> User mvatkina changed the following:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> What |Old value |New value
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> ================================================================================
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Status|NEW |STARTED
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> ------- Additional comments from mvatkina_at_dev.java.net
>>>>>>>>>> <mailto:mvatkina_at_dev.java.net> Thu Oct 12 01:56:44 +0000
>>>>>>>>>> 2006 -------
>>>>>>>>>> There are apparently several issues to address -
>>>>>>>>>> 1.Do not set log level explicitly if not specified in the
>>>>>>>>>> properties - use the
>>>>>>>>>> parent logger's level (set by the container) instead.
>>>>>>>>>> 2. The default logger namespace should be a child of TopLink
>>>>>>>>>> namespace, e.g.
>>>>>>>>>> "oracle.toplink.essentials.default", otherwise AbstractSessionLog
>>>>>>>>>> will set the
>>>>>>>>>> explicit level for all TopLink loggers (overriding the container
>>>>>>>>>> settings) in
>>>>>>>>>> the VM on the first PU with the specified log level.
>>>>>>>>>> 3. ServerSession name must be set prior to setting the logger for
>>>>>>>>>> that session,
>>>>>>>>>> otherwise the logger is registered as the default logger, and its
>>>>>>>>>> level will
>>>>>>>>>> apply to all PUs in this VM.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> A note: the problem that can't be solved so far is switching
>>>>>>>>>> between explicitly
>>>>>>>>>> specified log level for a PU and the defalt app server level for
>>>>>>>>>> this namespace.
>>>>>>>>>> As there is no way to unset log level after it's set, the only
>>>>>>>>>> work around will
>>>>>>>>>> be to change the property value or restart the server.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>