That sounds like it could work. Is there an existing appender that does that or did you write your own? Did it require modifying the log4j source code or were you able to extend using the existing binaries?
-----Original Message----- From: Maarten Bosteels [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Saturday, April 10, 2010 7:01 AM To: Log4J Users List Subject: Re: RollingFileAppender not working consistently 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] > >
