mirror of
https://github.com/Seldaek/monolog.git
synced 2026-04-26 08:05:53 +03:00
[GH-ISSUE #196] No timezone support in NormalizerFormatter #66
Labels
No labels
Bug
Documentation
Feature
Needs Work
Support
pull-request
No milestone
No project
No assignees
1 participant
Notifications
Due date
No due date set.
Dependencies
No dependencies set.
Reference
starred/monolog#66
Loading…
Add table
Add a link
Reference in a new issue
No description provided.
Delete branch "%!s()"
Deleting a branch is permanent. Although the deleted branch may continue to exist for a short time before it actually gets removed, it CANNOT be undone in most cases. Continue?
Originally created by @jeromer on GitHub (May 21, 2013).
Original GitHub issue: https://github.com/Seldaek/monolog/issues/196
Hello,
It seems the default date format available for log lines is very trivial : "Y-m-d H:i:s". source
This formats lacks informations such as current timezone and is not really a standard format.
Would it be a problem to replace this default format by at least something which does not lack information such as RFC 3339 or ISO 8601 date formats ?
Since PHP seems to provide constants such as DateTime::ISO8601 or DateTime::RFC3339 that should not require a lot of work.
If ever I overlooked anything about datetime support in Monolog feel free to tell me :)
@staabm commented on GitHub (May 21, 2013):
You may define any format you like using the constructor?
https://github.com/Seldaek/monolog/blob/master/src/Monolog/Formatter/NormalizerFormatter.php#L28
@jeromer commented on GitHub (May 21, 2013):
That's true but it does not change the problematic.
I was talking about the default format.
:)
@unwiredbrain commented on GitHub (May 21, 2013):
Generally speaking, I'd agree with @jeromer, but I also think that there could be specific reasons why the current implementation of
NormalizerFormatteruses that particular format.That being said my question is: are there any valid reasons to prefer the current
Y-m-d H:i:sformat instead of the RFC 3339 one as default?@Seldaek commented on GitHub (May 21, 2013):
I'm definitely +1 on this. However I think it might be best to delay this for a 2.0 release with other minor breaks that might be needed to clean things up a bit.
@jeromer commented on GitHub (May 22, 2013):
Do you have any ETA for a 2.0 version ?
Thanks :)
@Seldaek commented on GitHub (May 22, 2013):
When it's done. It's not much work though, I don't feel like many things need to change.
@jeromer commented on GitHub (May 22, 2013):
ok :)