On Jul 23, 2004, at 4:41 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Jul 23, 2004, at 3:25 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:I have a few questions:
1) Is it possible to make DailyRollingFileAppender delete files older
than
n days (hours, mins,...)? I was looking for something like that in the
As far as I can tell, that is a feature that is not currently in log4j.
I think the project in general would not be receptive to adding a
feature that is not already in log4j. However, if it is in log4j or if
you can get it accepted for log4j, then I think that log4cxx could
follow.
I know I need it if I am to use this library in real world. And I doubt anyone else has an urge of manually deleting old files. I can not imagine anyone would opose such a thing. But, then maybe I am missing something important...
There have been a couple of log4j bugs (bugs 13947, 11907, 29835) that appear related to these issues. I assume there may be traffic on the mailing list also related to this issue on log4j. I haven't followed them, but we would not want to address them in log4cxx in a different way than log4j. One of the comments on 13947 (which made rollover public) from Ceki Gulcu mentioned that DailyRollingFileAppender had been deprecated in log4j in preference for RollingFileAppender.
The log4j is more mature and has a more active community. If there is a problem with a proposal, it is much more likely to get a rigorous review when proposed for log4j. If somebody has a problem, that person more likely to complain if it was proposed for log4j than log4cxx.
RollingFileAppender has a MaxBackupIndex that limits the number of log files.
That is exactly what I need for DailyRolingFileAppender. I'll try to do it.
Another approach would be to make DailyRollingFileAppender::rollOver virtual, then you could extend the appender and add your own action on roll-over.
No, it does not feel right.
One of the log4j bugs mentioned using that approach hence the complaint about rollOver being private.
2) is there any work being done on communication with Chainsaw ?
I assume that you are talking about Socket communication with Chainsaw.
with log4j, however I don't know anyone working on it at this time. A
substantial part of the work would reverse engineering the binary
format of log4j serialized LoggingEvent which should be moderately
straightforward since Java serialization is documented and log4j is
open source.
I may give it a try one of these days.
3) Is there a possibility of having conversion character(s) for uptime
other than milliseconds ?
Again, this is a place where I think that we would need to follow log4j's lead.
Not that I am trying to be smart, but my request is coming from a real
world need - I must be able to see right away a meaningful number for the
process uptime.
Anyway, thanks for your precise and quick response. I've got some direction
now ...
I guess by meaningful, you mean formatted something like T1D4H33M? I wouldn't think "13.404 s" would be significantly more readable than "13404 ms". I haven't dug into this on the log4j bug or mailing list.
