Joel Wilsson From a prettiness perspective I agree, but I wanted to preserve the ability to find MESOS_LOG injected env vars, and just specifying "executorinfo" didn't seem descriptive enough. Since you almost always need to post-process that field in some way, the user script/program is pretty likely to want to do something with it.

Might run into MESOS-7386 if using docker and logger process dies

I guess this needs another look from Joseph Wu? It would be nice to have this feature merged.

0.28.2 port in case anyone else needs it
https://github.com/r4um/mesos-external-container-logger/tree/mesos-0.28.2-ubuntu-14.04.5

Thanks, Will Rouesnel.

I've updated my backport. I think I found one issue: executor_info_json_field should have a default value of "EXECUTORINFO_JSON" instead of "MESOS_EXECUTORINFO_JSON", since (as the help message explains) it's concatenated with the value of --mesos_field_prefix. Otherwise it gets turned into MESOS_LOG_MESOS_EXECUTORINFO_JSON.

Huh I thought I had notified this thread - anyway - I've rebased the patchset for the changes that have been made to ContainerLogger interface, so this should be good to go again.

Yes that would do, thanks a lot Joel Wilsson.

Pranay Kanwar I have back port of this as a standalone module here, if that's what you mean: https://github.com/wjoel/mesos-external-container-logger
I'll update it with the latest changes from Will later this week.

Can this also be available for other/older versions in a separate repo like https://github.com/dcos/dcos-mesos-modules/tree/master/journald ?

Rebased and building on master now, with added support for the new USER variable if someone could review.

Joseph Wu, I use it to do log forwarding with Filebeat and we're about to implement the same setup at work. It would be great if I didn't need to maintain and update a custom compiled module with this code for each new release.

Will Rouesnel, that would be fantastic, thanks! This is a very useful feature, especially because it enables the combination of log forwarding and log rotation.

I can rebase to whatever we're up to now.

Sorry, this dropped off my radar a while ago.

The ContainerLogger code is subtly different now. If you want to revive the reviews, you can post new versions of them, rebased to master.

(Just curious: what do you intend to use a module like this for?)

Will Rouesnel, Joseph Wu, is there anything I can do to help this move along?

Looks good to me as an outsider, but most of the code changes ended up in the documentation review request.

Latest round of fixups is waiting for review again.

Rebased and awaiting code review again against the latest master.

Module: https://reviews.apache.org/r/51257/
Docs: https://reviews.apache.org/r/51258/