[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LOG4J2-1874?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=15970545#comment-15970545
]
ASF GitHub Bot commented on LOG4J2-1874:
----------------------------------------
Github user remkop commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/logging-log4j2/pull/71
I'm not so much concerned that users implemented ByteBufferDestination, but
I'm more concerned that subclasses of OutputStreamManager and FileManager still
work. For example, the new ByteBufferDestination.write(byte[], int, int) method
needs to be renamed because it clashes with a pre-existing method (which was
protected, not public). After that, could the existing write(byte[], int, int)
method delegate to the new public one? Do they have the same concurrency
semantics?
> Add ByteBufferDestionation.write(ByteBuffer) and write(byte[], int, int)
> methods and call them from TextEncoderHelper whenever possible
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: LOG4J2-1874
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LOG4J2-1874
> Project: Log4j 2
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Reporter: Roman Leventov
> Assignee: Remko Popma
>
> Existing ByteBufferDestination API: getByteBuffer() and drain() is designed
> so that synchronization couldn't be avoided. This doesn't allow to implement
> LOG4J2-928.
> Github PR: https://github.com/apache/logging-log4j2/pull/71
> Added methods: write(ByteBuffer data) and write(byte[] data, int offset, int
> length) are designed so that they should care about synchronization
> themselves, internally, if needed. They should also synchronize with possible
> concurrent users of the synchronized getByteBuffer() + drain() API.
> Nevertheless, it allows for ByteBufferDestination implementations to
> implement write() methods without lock-free.
> TextEncoderHelper (hence StringBuilderEncoder, which delegates it's logic to
> TextEncoderHelper) is changed so that it calls ByteBufferDestination.write()
> whenever possible. There is an expectation that most of encoded events fit
> the thread-local buffers, and write() could be called instead of writing to
> destination.getByteBuffer() with synchronization.
> The PR also includes a sanity improvement: uses ByteBuffer.arrayOffset() at
> some places.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.15#6346)
