On Fri, Apr 9, 2010 at 7:15 AM, Mohan.Radhakrishnan <[email protected]>wrote:
> > I have looked at the source here and I have a question. > > > Since the log4j extras has other methods of rolling over that are time > based > I thought if we schedule the rename for a lean period when there is not > much > log file updates then there would be no problem. Am I on the right track ? > > What about appenders that don't roll over but create a file the first time > with a timestamp ? Does this solve the roll over issue ? > > yes. That's what we do. Our appender's decision to roll is based on fileSize, the name of the file is based on timestamp. No renaming needed. Maarten > > -- > View this message in context: > http://old.nabble.com/RollingFileAppender-not-working-consistently-tp28087307p28187724.html > Sent from the Log4j - Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com. > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] > For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] > >
