For the access-log would it make sense to provide just the hook to
specify the logging adapter? Access logging typically logs the request
path (which I suppose we could still get to in glassfish). I'm not sure
how that config would look if it were left in glassfish's schema...
I'll give it some thought and just ignore that for now...
Oleksiy Stashok wrote:
> Hi,
>
>> In domain.xml, an admin can define which address to bind the
>> http-listener to (defaults to "0.0.0.0" iirc). There's no address
>> currently in the DTD (though adding that is easy enough). In
>> network-listener, there is the "host" attribute which stands a pretty
>> chance of being what I want. Is that intended to be the physical
>> address? If so, I think we should rename it or at the least update
>> the comments.
> Hmm. Socket API uses both names in the same way. I'm ok to change this
> to address.
>
>> There also appears to be no grizzly counterpart suitable for
>> converting access-log entries over to grizzly. That's assuming, of
>> course, we want to do the logging in grizzly and not keep it in
>> glassfish, but I think it makes sense for grizzly to deal with it
>> especially with port unification looming...
> Think we planned to keep access-log with WebContainer related config,
> not Grizzly.
>
> Thanks.
>
> WBR,
> Alexey.
>
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe_at_grizzly.dev.java.net
>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help_at_grizzly.dev.java.net
>>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe_at_grizzly.dev.java.net
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help_at_grizzly.dev.java.net
>