Hi Ceki,
On 20.12.2011 16:36, ceki wrote:
I've started working on this problem. Can you please enter a bug report
requesting this future along the lines of your email post? It makes
referencing easier.
Thanks for the quick reply.
I just created http://jira.qos.ch/browse/LBCORE-242 to cover this.
Here are some possible solutions.
First solution: add an option, say SECONDARY, to %d so that the token is
*not* taken into account when determining the rollover period.
you would write:
<FileNamePattern>%d{yyyy-MM,SECONDARY}/app.%d{yyyy-MM-dd}.log</File...>
Second solution: use a different identifier for the token, for example
%t instead of %d.
you would write:
<FileNamePattern>%t{yyyy-MM}/app.%d{yyyy-MM-dd}.log</FileNamePattern>
I have a slight preference for the first solution because it involves
less code changes.
I guess both will get the job done, though the 2nd solution seems a
little less kludgy to me.
That said, it could be argued that using the file name pattern for
specifying both, file names and the rollover period, is somewhat
convenient, but violates the principle of "separation of concerns" to
some extent. A dedicated (optional) property to specify the rollover
period separately may be the best solution.
But of course it's your call.
Best regards,
Thomas
--
Thomas Corte
[email protected]
_______________________________________________
Logback-user mailing list
[email protected]
http://mailman.qos.ch/mailman/listinfo/logback-user
