<html><body><div style="color:#000; background-color:#fff; font-family:HelveticaNeue, Helvetica Neue, Helvetica, Arial, Lucida Grande, sans-serif;font-size:12pt"><div style="" class=""><span style="" class="">Ceki,</span></div><div class="" style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-size: 16px; font-family: HelveticaNeue,Helvetica Neue,Helvetica,Arial,Lucida Grande,sans-serif; background-color: transparent; font-style: normal;"><br style="" class=""><span style="" class=""></span></div><div class="" style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-size: 16px; font-family: HelveticaNeue,Helvetica Neue,Helvetica,Arial,Lucida Grande,sans-serif; background-color: transparent; font-style: normal;"><span style="" class="">My vote is for option 1).<br style="" class=""></span></div><div class="" style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-size: 16px; font-family: HelveticaNeue,Helvetica Neue,Helvetica,Arial,Lucida Grande,sans-serif; background-color: transparent; font-style: normal;"><span
style="" class=""><br style="" class=""></span></div><div class="" style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-size: 16px; font-family: HelveticaNeue,Helvetica Neue,Helvetica,Arial,Lucida Grande,sans-serif; background-color: transparent; font-style: normal;"><span style="" class="">The standard violating "no T" original format is a bug that should never have happened.<br></span></div><div class="" style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-size: 16px; font-family: HelveticaNeue,Helvetica Neue,Helvetica,Arial,Lucida Grande,sans-serif; background-color: transparent; font-style: normal;"><br style="" class=""></div><div class="" style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-size: 16px; font-family: HelveticaNeue,Helvetica Neue,Helvetica,Arial,Lucida Grande,sans-serif; background-color: transparent; font-style: normal;">I also vote for <span style="" class="">just %d to yield the correct (strict) ISO 8601 format</span>.</div><div class="" style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-size: 16px;
font-family: HelveticaNeue,Helvetica Neue,Helvetica,Arial,Lucida Grande,sans-serif; background-color: transparent; font-style: normal;"><br></div><div class="" style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-size: 16px; font-family: HelveticaNeue,Helvetica Neue,Helvetica,Arial,Lucida Grande,sans-serif; background-color: transparent; font-style: normal;">brent</div><div class="" style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-size: 16px; font-family: HelveticaNeue,Helvetica Neue,Helvetica,Arial,Lucida Grande,sans-serif; background-color: transparent; font-style: normal;"><br></div><div class="" style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-size: 16px; font-family: HelveticaNeue,Helvetica Neue,Helvetica,Arial,Lucida Grande,sans-serif; background-color: transparent; font-style: normal;">p.s. I am tempted to betray my regional preferences by also advocating for the second/millisecond decimal separator to be a '.' instead of a ','...<br style="" class=""><span style="" class=""></span></div><div
class="" style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-size: 16px; font-family: HelveticaNeue,Helvetica Neue,Helvetica,Arial,Lucida Grande,sans-serif; background-color: transparent; font-style: normal;"><span style="" class=""><br style="" class=""></span></div><div style="" class=""><br style="" class=""></div><blockquote class="" style="border-left: 2px solid rgb(16, 16, 255); margin-left: 5px; margin-top: 5px; padding-left: 5px;"> <div class="" style="font-family: HelveticaNeue, Helvetica Neue, Helvetica, Arial, Lucida Grande, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt;"> <div class="" style="font-family: HelveticaNeue, Helvetica Neue, Helvetica, Arial, Lucida Grande, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt;"> <div style="" class="" dir="ltr"> <hr style="" class="" size="1"> <font style="" class="" face="Arial" size="2"> <b style="" class=""><span class="" style="font-weight:bold;">From:</span></b> Ceki Gülcü <ceki@qos.ch><br style="" class=""> <b style="" class=""><span class=""
style="font-weight: bold;">To:</span></b> logback-dev@qos.ch <br style="" class=""> <b style="" class=""><span class="" style="font-weight: bold;">Sent:</span></b> Tuesday, June 17, 2014 5:38 PM<br style="" class=""> <b style="" class=""><span class="" style="font-weight: bold;">Subject:</span></b> Re: [logback-dev] ISO8601 format<br style="" class=""> </font> </div> <div style="" class=""><br style="" class=""><br style="" class="" clear="none">Hello everyone,<br style="" class="" clear="none"><br style="" class="" clear="none">At present time, %d{ISO8601} is equivalent to writing<br style="" class="" clear="none">%d{"yyyy-MM-dd HH:mm:ss,SSS"}. However, to match the ISO8601<br style="" class="" clear="none">standard the output should be that of %d{"yyyy-MM-dd'T'HH:mm:ss,SSS"}. <br style="" class="" clear="none">Note the 'T' in the middle.<br style="" class="" clear="none"><br style="" class="" clear="none">On the other hand, there is also a necessity
to maintain backward <br style="" class="" clear="none">compatibility for log parsers that rely on the current albeit incorrect <br style="" class="" clear="none">format.<br style="" class="" clear="none"><br style="" class="" clear="none">Thus, we are hesitating between two options<br style="" class="" clear="none"><br style="" class="" clear="none">Option 1)<br style="" class="" clear="none"><br style="" class="" clear="none">Introduce the constant ISO8601_OLD so that %d{ISO8601_OLD} is <br style="" class="" clear="none">interpreted as equivalent to %d{"yyyy-MM-dd HH:mm:ss,SSS"}<br style="" class="" clear="none">and *change* %d{ISO8601} so it is now equivalent to<br style="" class="" clear="none">%d{"yyyy-MM-dd HH:mm:ss,SSS"}.<br style="" class="" clear="none"><br style="" class="" clear="none"><br style="" class="" clear="none">Option 2)<br style="" class="" clear="none"><br style="" class="" clear="none">Keep %d{ISO8601} as equivalent to
%d{"yyyy-MM-dd HH:mm:ss,SSS"}<br style="" class="" clear="none">and *introduce* new constant ISO8601_STRICT so that %d{ISO8601_STRICT} <br style="" class="" clear="none">is interpreted as equivalent to %d{"yyyy-MM-dd'T'HH:mm:ss,SSS"}.<br style="" class="" clear="none"><br style="" class="" clear="none"><br style="" class="" clear="none">Personally, I favor the latter (option 2) as it preserves backward <br style="" class="" clear="none">compatibility and allows users to easily refer to the correct ISO8601 <br style="" class="" clear="none">format if they wish to do so. Indeed, writing %d{ISO8601_STRICT} is <br style="" class="" clear="none">easier than %d{"yyyy-MM-dd'T'HH:mm:ss,SSS"}. Moreover, we can encourage <br style="" class="" clear="none">the use of %d{ISO8601_STRICT} by favoring it in the documentation, e.g. <br style="" class="" clear="none">by mentioning it more often.<br style="" class="" clear="none"><br style="" class=""
clear="none">Note that writing just %d is equivalent to writing %d{ISO8601}. Thus, <br style="" class="" clear="none">we can assume that for most user the output generated by %d is done <br style="" class="" clear="none">using the default, i.e. the incorrect format, making the backward <br style="" class="" clear="none">compatibility argument more potent.<br style="" class="" clear="none"><br style="" class="" clear="none">Cheers,<br style="" class="" clear="none">--<br style="" class="" clear="none">Ceki<br style="" class="" clear="none"><div style="" class="" id="yqtfd98400"><br style="" class="" clear="none">On 6/17/2014 4:22, Tony Trinh wrote:<br style="" class="" clear="none">> Per LOGBACK-262 [1], logback does not conform to ISO8601 when printing<br style="" class="" clear="none">> %d{ISO8601}. We're in the process of fixing this [2], but we'd like to<br style="" class="" clear="none">> maintain backward compatibility for log
parsers that might rely on the<br style="" class="" clear="none">> incorrect format. We have a couple options.<br style="" class="" clear="none">><br style="" class="" clear="none">> OPTION 1. Add a new option for %d that enables the legacy incorrect<br style="" class="" clear="none">> format. Deprecate it, and remove it after several releases. Examples:<br style="" class="" clear="none">><br style="" class="" clear="none">> %d{ISO8601_OLD}<br style="" class="" clear="none">> %d{NOT8601}<br style="" class="" clear="none">> %d{OLD8601}<br style="" class="" clear="none">> %d{ISO8601,,old}<br style="" class="" clear="none">> other?<br style="" class="" clear="none">><br style="" class="" clear="none">> OPTION 2. Force users to specify a custom date format that matches the<br style="" class="" clear="none">> legacy incorrect format:<br style="" class=""
clear="none">><br style="" class="" clear="none">> %d{"yyyy-MM-dd HH:mm:ss,SSS"}<br style="" class="" clear="none">><br style="" class="" clear="none">> Please provide feedback on these options (or a new one) by June 23.<br style="" class="" clear="none">><br style="" class="" clear="none">> Thanks,<br style="" class="" clear="none">> Tony<br style="" class="" clear="none">><br style="" class="" clear="none">> [1] <a style="" class="" shape="rect" href="http://jira.qos.ch/browse/LOGBACK-262" target="_blank">http://jira.qos.ch/browse/LOGBACK-262</a><br style="" class="" clear="none">> [2] <a style="" class="" shape="rect" href="https://github.com/qos-ch/logback/pull/207" target="_blank">https://github.com/qos-ch/logback/pull/207</a><br style="" class="" clear="none">><br style="" class="" clear="none">_______________________________________________<br style="" class="" clear="none">logback-dev mailing list<br
style="" class="" clear="none"><a style="" class="" shape="rect" ymailto="mailto:logback-dev@qos.ch" href="mailto:logback-dev@qos.ch">logback-dev@qos.ch</a><br style="" class="" clear="none"><a style="" class="" shape="rect" href="http://mailman.qos.ch/mailman/listinfo/logback-dev" target="_blank">http://mailman.qos.ch/mailman/listinfo/logback-dev</a><br style="" class="" clear="none"></div><br style="" class=""><br style="" class=""></div> </div> </div> </blockquote><div></div> </div></body></html>