logging-log4j-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Michael A. McAngus" <...@infinet.com>
Subject Re: Updating millisecond timestamps.
Date Sat, 29 Jun 2002 02:58:49 GMT
I added parse because of the way LF5 works.  My original change broke 
LF5 because it assumed dd MMM yyyy HH:mm:ss,SSS for the time logged.  It 
then tried to parse the time string back into a Date object so it could 
obtain the long timestamp.  In order to fix the problem, I implemented 
parse(String, ParsePosition).

Since then, I've realized that what LF5 wanted was the timestamp, so my 
most recent changes (which I haven't yet submitted) includes a %R option 
in PatternLayout which provides the long millisecond timestamp directly.

Still, why shouldn't DateTimeDateFormat and ISO8601DateFormat be able to 
parse the Date/Time Strings that they create?

Mike McAngus

Ceki Gülcü wrote:

> Mike,
> Your patches came through fine. Can you explain why you are
> implementing the parse(String text, ParsePosition pos) method in the
> various DateFormatters? This method is not used, so what is the point
> of implementing it?
> At 09:51 17.06.2002 -0400, Mike_McAngus@wendys.com wrote:
>> Well, it looks like my attachments from home still come through as 
>> in-line
>> text.
>> In my email reader here at work, they show up in the email listing as
>> attachments, but they display as in-line text when I open the message.
>> Sorry for any inconvenience.
>> Mike McAngus
> -- 
> Ceki
> -- 
> To unsubscribe, e-mail:   
> <mailto:log4j-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org>
> For additional commands, e-mail: 
> <mailto:log4j-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org>

To unsubscribe, e-mail:   <mailto:log4j-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:log4j-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org>

View raw message