logging-log4j-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Leo Lima" <onl...@l3o.net>
Subject Re: Enhanced FileAppender
Date Wed, 04 Oct 2006 21:22:12 GMT
Hello, Curt.

"Curt Arnold" <carnold@apache.org> escreveu na mensagem 
news:EEC109F2-83CF-47EB-B206-49E8F6C0EC3B@apache.org...
> I'll try to flesh out a sandbox project for this at ApacheCON US 's 
> Hackathon next week.  I don't know of any other log4j developers that 
> will be there, but at least one log4net developer will be attending.

Great! I'd surely like to participate in such project. Hope I can then be 
more useful than just a leecher...
Please let us know about further development.

>
> The fundamental characteristics that I see are:

I agree with you on almost all of them, but:

> A configurable limit on the number of writers open at any one time.
> A configurable limit on the time a writer will rename open without  any 
> writes.

It would be something like 'whichever comes first, close a file handler', 
right?

> Opening or reopening a log file will append to the file.

That should be the case only if the log file was closed due timeout or max 
open limit reached; because that would then mimic the behavior of 
FileAppender; the Append parameter being false, the file is overwritten on 
first open...

>
> I would expect this to be derived from AppenderSkeleton or maybe 
> WriterAppender, but not FileAppender.

Why not?

>
> I like the name MultiFileAppender at the moment.
>
> Headers and Footers might be interesting.  I think you'd only write  the 
> header when the file does not exist.  I think you would not want  to write 
> the footer when a file was closed due to max open files or  elapsed time, 
> which might mean keeping around a list of file names  that had been 
> encountered and writing the footers when the overall  appender was closed. 
> Or maybe not support headers/footers at al.

I think not supporting is better, avoiding many complications...

>
> I would not suggest using a thread to monitor the elapsed time, but  just 
> check the map of writers on each log request.

The problem of not using a thread would be that, if the system is not 
generating new log events, the writer would never timeout, thus failing to 
do what it was supposed to do. I guess that the problem we (I do, at least) 
face is too many open files; that would be solved using the 'A configurable 
limit on the number of writers open at any one time.' you suggested. It 
would them eliminate the oldest (or least on average? which strategy is 
better?) open, close it and generate a new. This way, we avoid 'max open 
files' errors and don't have to have a thread checking, nor check on each 
log event: check only when creating a new file. That could be done using a 
pool of some sort...

My 2 cents.

Best regards,
Leo. 




---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: log4j-dev-unsubscribe@logging.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: log4j-dev-help@logging.apache.org


Mime
View raw message