Kevin,
As far as I am aware, users would like to roll files
- by size,
- by time (day, hour, month, ...)
Users also demand different "backup" policies. Some ask to keep an indefinite number
of log files, i.e. to set maxBackupIndex property to infinite, which the current
RollingFileAppender cannot do. (See bug 1459:
http://nagoya.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=1459 )Some users have also asked to
have periodic roll overs but keep only a limited number of log files, e.g. roll daily
and keep the last ten days but remove older files. Currently, the
DailyRollingFileAppender keeps all files.
I am most interested in a clean implementation that gets the job done reliably. All
other considerations such as class names, release dates, schedules, UML diagrams, etc.
are secondary. The code has to be well tested as it will be used by many thousands in
a production environment. Regards, Ceki
At 00:07 26.06.2001 -0700, you wrote:
>Ceki,
> what are the chances of changing this to include the date from the start of
>logging for the
>next release? I'd be happy to make the code changes myself even -- should be
>trivial. It will
>save a bunch of file renames for the CompositeRollingFileAppender -- or whatever name
>is good for
>the Daily + Size rolling appender combined.
>
> I'd like your opinion on I thought I just had -- I could write a composite which
>combines the
>other two (only) or a composite which can do either rolling feature or both and thus
>makes the
>original two redudant/obsolete. Preference and reasons?
>
>Thanks as always,
>Kevin
>
>
>Ceki Gülcü wrote:
>
>> Kevin,
>>
>> Eeuuh - I'd go with a bad choice. I can't think of no vital interest whatsoever.
>Regards, Ceki
>>
>> At 23:32 25.06.2001 -0700, you wrote:
>> >DailyRollingFileAppender starts by logging to "file.log" and
>> >eventually renames that file to "file.log.YYYY-MM-DD" (as
>> >appropriate to the timing) and begins logging to a fresh
>> >version of "file.log". Why do this rather than start
>> >logging to file "file.log.YYYY-MM-DD" in the first place so
>> >that all files including the current file are date tagged?
>> >Either this was an arbitrary design choice, or I'm not
>> >seeing some vital importance to having the file currently
>> >logged to always be the same -- I'm guessing the latter so
>> >please enlighten me.
>> >
>> >Kevin
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> >To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> >For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>
>> --
>> Ceki Gülcü
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
>---------------------------------------------------------------------
>To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
Ceki Gülcü
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
