> > synchronization. Many classes of appenders will need to be > > synchronized at some point on a shared resource (a file for > > example), but the framework should allow fully concurrent > appenders > > (for example, an appender that simply discards messages should not > > require any synchronization). > > > > So, we'd need to document that Appender & Layout 3rd party > developers > would need to design for thread-safety? That log4j2 would not > guarantee thread-safety on the call to the layout/appender?
just a small thought: as threadsafe programming seems to be a problem for lots of programmers it would be certainly a good idea to provide some AppenderSkeleton and SychronizedAppenderSkeleton. actually i even think the naming should rather be the other way round with syncronized appenders as 'default' starting point: AppenderSkeleton and 'UnsychronizedAppenderSkeleton' (obviously i'm not nativ english speaker ;-) ) regards patrick wyss --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
