[logback-dev] ISO8601 format

[Brent]

Ceki,

My vote is for option 1).


The standard violating "no T" original format is a bug that should never have happened.


I also vote for just %d to yield the correct (strict) ISO 8601 format.

brent

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 ','...




>________________________________
> From: Ceki Gülcü <ceki at qos.ch>
>To: logback-dev at qos.ch 
>Sent: Tuesday, June 17, 2014 5:38 PM
>Subject: Re: [logback-dev] ISO8601 format
> 
>
>
>Hello everyone,
>
>At present time, %d{ISO8601} is equivalent to writing
>%d{"yyyy-MM-dd HH:mm:ss,SSS"}. However, to match the ISO8601
>standard the output should be that of %d{"yyyy-MM-dd'T'HH:mm:ss,SSS"}. 
>Note the 'T' in the middle.
>
>On the other hand, there is also a necessity to maintain backward 
>compatibility for log parsers that rely on the current albeit incorrect 
>format.
>
>Thus, we are hesitating between two options
>
>Option 1)
>
>Introduce the constant ISO8601_OLD so that %d{ISO8601_OLD} is 
>interpreted as equivalent to %d{"yyyy-MM-dd HH:mm:ss,SSS"}
>and *change* %d{ISO8601} so it is now equivalent to
>%d{"yyyy-MM-dd HH:mm:ss,SSS"}.
>
>
>Option 2)
>
>Keep %d{ISO8601} as equivalent to %d{"yyyy-MM-dd HH:mm:ss,SSS"}
>and *introduce* new constant ISO8601_STRICT so that %d{ISO8601_STRICT} 
>is interpreted as equivalent to %d{"yyyy-MM-dd'T'HH:mm:ss,SSS"}.
>
>
>Personally, I favor the latter (option 2) as it preserves backward 
>compatibility and allows users to easily refer to the correct ISO8601 
>format if they wish to do so. Indeed, writing  %d{ISO8601_STRICT}  is 
>easier than %d{"yyyy-MM-dd'T'HH:mm:ss,SSS"}. Moreover, we can encourage 
>the use of %d{ISO8601_STRICT} by favoring it in the documentation, e.g. 
>by mentioning it more often.
>
>Note that writing just %d is equivalent to writing  %d{ISO8601}. Thus, 
>we can assume that for most user the output generated by %d is done 
>using the default, i.e. the incorrect format, making the backward 
>compatibility argument more potent.
>
>Cheers,
>--
>Ceki
>
>
>On 6/17/2014 4:22, Tony Trinh wrote:
>> Per LOGBACK-262 [1], logback does not conform to ISO8601 when printing
>> %d{ISO8601}. We're in the process of fixing this [2], but we'd like to
>> maintain backward compatibility for log parsers that might rely on the
>> incorrect format. We have a couple options.
>>
>> OPTION 1. Add a new option for %d that enables the legacy incorrect
>> format. Deprecate it, and remove it after several releases. Examples:
>>
>>    %d{ISO8601_OLD}
>>    %d{NOT8601}
>>    %d{OLD8601}
>>    %d{ISO8601,,old}
>>    other?
>>
>> OPTION 2. Force users to specify a custom date format that matches the
>> legacy incorrect format:
>>
>>    %d{"yyyy-MM-dd HH:mm:ss,SSS"}
>>
>> Please provide feedback on these options (or a new one) by June 23.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Tony
>>
>> [1] http://jira.qos.ch/browse/LOGBACK-262
>> [2] https://github.com/qos-ch/logback/pull/207
>>
>_______________________________________________
>logback-dev mailing list
>logback-dev at qos.ch
>http://mailman.qos.ch/mailman/listinfo/logback-dev
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.qos.ch/pipermail/logback-dev/attachments/20140617/ceeb3509/attachment.html>