Hi Dominik, Thanks for your reply.
1. Thanks for informing about the 'next generation' RollingFileAppender. I have been going through your feature branch and it seems to be the right futuristic path. I'd like to contribute to it. 2. However, I have queries regarding the faster way to make my appender to productio. Putting together the subset of RollingFileAppender functionalities in its NG counterpart will take some time and the NG appender will take some time to be popular too. On the other hand, the appender I am proposing (derived from RollingFileAppender) is nearly complete. RollingFileAppender has many issues, but still it is the most popular I think and is quite acceptable in low-strain conditions. How about reusing RollingFileAppender for now and working on the NG at the same time, for future releases? Or is it the resolution across log4net that "no more extensions to RollingFileAppender"? :D 3. In order to contribute, shall I create a new branch from the NG feature branch, make changes, and send pull requests into the NG branch? Or can I commit directly to NG branch? Regards. Farhan Nasim http://fnasimbd.github.io On Tue, Dec 18, 2018, 4:43 PM Dominik Psenner <dpsen...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Farhan, > > it's great to see your interest in the logging framework log4net. I'm > commenting inline below .. > > On 2018-12-13 23:31, Farhan Nasim wrote: > > Have encountered a scenario in many projects where log files covering > only > > a last user specified period is needed (e.g. last 5 days, last 3 hours, > > etc.) So far, Log4net doesn't provide any such appender out of the box; > the > > RollingFileAppender only supports backing up a number of last files > > (maxSizeRollBackups). > > This is a valid usecase. > > > 1. I am writing an appender (made some progress in fact) that derives > > from *RollingFileAppender > > *and serves the purpose. It takes a string denoting a TimeSpan as > parameter > > and keeps files falling only in this period. It follows Log4net > conventions > > and it is tested for minutes to days periods. Is Log4net willing to > include > > any similar appender? > > The RollingFileAppender is probably not the ideal base to start off your > work. I already put > effort into re-writing the RollingFileAppender where the rolling > strategy is pluggable. Would > you like to continue or derive from that work? The branch is > feature/RollingFileAppender-NG [1]. > Unfortunately I had so far not the time to complete this. We do observe > that a major part of > reported issues is related to the current implementation of the > RollingFileAppender and would like > to improve this situation. The next generation rolling file appender > should probably only provide > a subset of the functionality that its predecessor offered but should > become more stable. > > > 2. I need some critical feedbacks on naming and conventions. Am I > supposed > > to submit my changes as a pull request or have them discussed here? > > A good place to discuss source code contributions is github in the form > of a pull request. You'll > also benefit from the continuous integration. Jenkins builds each pull > requests and you can examine > the build outputs etc. Please try to keep your pull requests short and > concise to allow easy reviews. > > [1] > > https://github.com/apache/logging-log4net/tree/feature/RollingFileAppender-NG > >
