On Thu, 2004-12-30 at 03:03, Ceki GÃlcà wrote: > You couldn't possibly the sequence counter incremented within > LoggingEvent to detect dropped messages. First, sequenceCounter is a > class static variable shared by all LoggingRepositories within a JVM, > all of which increment the same counter. Second, Appenders do not > receive all logging events associated with a logging repository. (When > a logger L causes an LoggingEvent to be generated, Appender A might > not be on the path of logger L.) Moreover, an Appender can choose to > drop events due to its own filters or its threshold.
It seems fairly logical that if you distinguish logging events per logger, you should have a sequence count per logger rather than per a LoggerRepository. It would also reduce thread locking contention, assuming different parts of the program are executing on different processors. (I'm the guy who's brought concurrency up on this list before. I think concurrency is a big deal, especially when writing code for multi-processor and hyper-threading machines which are increasingly the norm.) --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
