On Jun 5, 2008, at 7:19 PM, Jess Holle wrote:
For my own usage I went ahead and completed the a set of changes to
reduce log4j 1.2.x's locking and deadlock potential. The results
are attached and make unabashed use of Java 5 -- as from discussion
to this point it seems clear that there is no interest in making any
of these sorts of changes in log4j 1.2.x yet I felt the need for
such improvements now and only care about Java 5 and later
environments.
...
Thanks for your contribution.
Would you consider signing a Individual Contributor License Agreement (http://www.apache.org/licenses/#clas
)? While the Apache license has clauses that cover material sent to
mailing lists, it is preferred to have an ICLA on file, particularly
for substantial contributions.
My take is that the contribution breaks compatibility with JDK 1.3 and
1.4 and the removal of the synchronization lock on Category could
potentially cause an existing appender to fail that depended on that
lock, though I haven't tried to formulate a failure scenario. This
late in the log4j 1.2.x lifecycle, I'm extremely cautious about
changes that have potential side effects. So I'd -1 applying these to
the trunk at least prior to log4j 1.2.16 and after that only on much
more extensive review that I've been able to give it to this point.
I would not have a problem creating a branch in the sandbox for these
modifications. I don't think it is the path to a log4j 2.0, but could
be convinced otherwise. It is at least some movement which is a good
thing.
@author tags are pretty common in the log4j code base, however they
are currently discouraged in ASF code as they are seen to contribute
to a territorialism that some code belongs to that particular
individual and no one else should touch it. We haven't gone threw and
removed the existing author tags, but should avoid adding any new ones.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
