Thanks Andy, I added a comment to that issue to track.
> On Apr 27, 2020, at 10:38 AM, andytaylor wrote:
>
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ARTEMIS-2648
>
> feel free to add extra requirements
>
>
>
> --
> Sent from: http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/ActiveMQ-User-f2341805.html
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ARTEMIS-2648
feel free to add extra requirements
--
Sent from: http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/ActiveMQ-User-f2341805.html
just fyi, Im currently doing some workaround this to improve audit logging.
basically being able to log the user and ip address in certain events and
also refining the granularity, should have something in a week or so.
--
Sent from: http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/ActiveMQ-User-f2341805.
Hi Steve,
the AuditLogger is often called in a context without a `Subject`[1] so it
can't log the right username.
To avoid this issue the username could be passed explicitly as suggested by
Howard. Each AuditLogger entry has 2 methods and adding the `user` parameter
to the static one would allow t
Thanks very much for your response. Just so I’m clear when submitting the
ticket, you’re saying that the method signatures in
org.apache.activemq.artemis.logs.AuditLogger that use the getCaller() method
should be considered for removal, leaving just the ones that take the explicit
user argument
Some of the audit log method have the username passed in explicitly and so
get correctly logged. Some others however don't, in which case the audit
logger uses Subject.getSubject(context) in an attempt to acquire the
caller. But within broker I believe most of the operations doesn't
associated the
