logging-log4net-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Dominik Psenner" <dpsen...@gmail.com>
Subject RE: New RollingFileAppender semantics
Date Wed, 21 Sep 2011 12:10:34 GMT
>My current plan is to dummy up a new RFA (configuration points) and
>write the XML doc for the configuration points and pass the result of
>that out for review and comments.  We must be explicit about the
>semantics of the new configuration.  We have already observed cases
>where I have not correctly interrupted the meaning of Dominik was
>suggesting. Once we agree on the configuration and semantics of that
>configuration, things can go better.
>
>I am also thinking about not deriving from FileAppender as Curt
>mentioned in the emails about the new RFA for log4j.  I will have to
>think about that more after we finalize the new design and I see the new
>FileAppender with the Mutex locking etc.
>
>If we want to support Mutex locking in RFA(NG), then it might be best to
>continue to derive from FileAppender and wrap all the rolling in the
>Mutex.  If we do not want to support that type of locking, then not
>getting involved with FileAppender may make the code cleaner, but it
>will increase the amount of code.

Thanks for the information. This means that today, specifically in the
evening around 20°°, I'm going to try my best to come up with a
"RollingFileAppenderNG" implementation that derives from FileAppender.
Therefore the first layout of the RFA-NG will be much like the current RFA.
We can still iterate over write&review cycles as often as it takes.


Mime
View raw message