https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38363
Curt Arnold <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
--- Comment #4 from Curt Arnold <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 2008-08-12 22:01:03 PST ---
Adding a try block around callAppenders could have performance implications.
Also, in a perfect world, you would not want the failure of one appender to
cause the rest to fail, so if you were going to do that, you'd want to do in
within callAppenders.
The implicit appender contract is that Appenders don't let anything percolate
out of their append method. The RFAs are particular prone to to
SecurityExceptions due to their file renaming. However, it probably would be
best just to fix this in org.apache.log4j.rolling.RFA in the extras and not in
DRFA and RFA since there are known problems in them that are fixed in
o.a.l.r.RFA and they offer no functionality not in o.a.l.r.RFA.
However, if someone wants to submit a patch against o.a.l.RFA and DRFA that is
fairly clean, I would not object.
--
Configure bugmail: https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the assignee for the bug.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
