I will look into it.  Fwiw, if you fork 2.3 and apply the patch it is possible 
we could go ahead and do a 2.3.1 release. If there is other stuff you would 
want included you could also do that on your fork.

Ralph

> On Dec 9, 2015, at 4:56 AM, Dave Glasser <[email protected]> wrote:
> 
>                                                                               
>                                                                               
>       
> Thanks Ralph. I'll either have to apply that patch or go back to 1.2.x, 
> because the software already has that functionality using 1.2.x, and it can't 
> be taken out.
> I notice that with the patch the size is updated through the 
> RollingFileManager, but I can't figure out a way to get a reference to that. 
> Any help on that one?
>      From: Ralph Goers <[email protected]>
> To: Log4J Users List <[email protected]>; Dave Glasser 
> <[email protected]> 
> Sent: Wednesday, December 9, 2015 1:25 AM
> Subject: Re: programmatically change max file size of RollingFileAppender
> 
> This was fixed in LOG4J2-381. Unfortunately that is in the 2.5 release so 
> would require Java 7.  I suppose you could back port the fix to 2.3.
> 
> Ralph
> 
> 
> 
>> On Dec 8, 2015, at 9:56 PM, Dave Glasser <[email protected]> wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> I'm using Log4j 2.3, rather than the latest 2.x version, because my code 
>> needs to run on Java 1.6. Anyway, I am configuring everything 
>> programmatically. When I create the RollingFileAppender with 
>> RollingFileAppender.createAppender, I pass in as the policy parameter:
>> 
>> SizeBasedTriggeringPolicy.createPolicy("10MB");
>> 
>> So far, so good. But I need to be able to change the max file size 
>> programattically at runtime. I could do it with log4j 1.2.x because my 
>> RollingFileAppender had a setMaxFileSize() method. But in 2.3, the 
>> triggerPolicy field of RollingFileAppender is read only, and the 
>> SizeBasedTriggeringPolicy that determines the max file size seems to be 
>> immutable. About the only thing I can see that might work is to remove the 
>> appender and replace it with a new one. Does anyone know a simpler solution?
> 
> 
> 


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]

Reply via email to