> On Monday 11 February 2008 16:17, Karl Pauls wrote: > > However, do you (and others) think > > it is acceptable to deliver log events asynchronously or at least > > later then the actual point they occur? > > If you are only worried about Pax Logging case, then you need to do nothing. > The locking in Log4J is severe enough for us to consider it "our problem" and > I will probably later in the week do the "buffering" for you, which will be > in proper order. > > I am not sure if there are any other Log Services out there, which will have > similar problems. > > The broader concern probably still remains; Should the framework have any > locks in place when calling outside itself, whether being log message, events > or callbacks? The spec is pretty silent about it, and I have no clue how > Felix measure up against the others on this point. But I think it is a valid > question to ask both here and to the spec guys.
Well, we only hold locks in the case of log messages. For the other calls we should be lock free . regards, Karl > Cheers > -- > Niclas Hedhman, Software Developer > > I live here; http://tinyurl.com/2qq9er > I work here; http://tinyurl.com/2ymelc > I relax here; http://tinyurl.com/2cgsug > -- Karl Pauls [EMAIL PROTECTED]
