On May 19, 2008, at 11:22 AM, Jess Holle wrote:
If it is sufficiently compelling it appears it would be possible to
rework AppenderSkeleton without breaking most extensions thereof but
allowing Layout.format() to be hoisted out of the synchronization
block in cases where the Layout is an instance of some special
interface. [I was hacking away at this approach when I ran into the
issue with PatternLayout.] The point here would be to reduce the
bottleneck imposed by today's Appenders and Layouts while only
reworking some Layout classes.
--
Jess Holle
Did you check out the "concurrent" contribution in the sandbox, http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/logging/sandbox/log4j/concurrent?
See also http://marc.info/?l=log4j-dev&m=110623974420412&w=2.
As we are very far along in the log4j 1.2.x lifetime, removing
synchronization points in the main-line of the code is very high risk
activity. The concurrent proposal basically created a parallel
package of classes that had different synchronization guarantees and
so would not require proving that a particular modification would be
safe for all potential uses.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
