Ceki Gülcü skrev:
> The process that I followed was to examine to the logback code to
> determine what prudent mode was, which I then described as part of the
> bug report and then implemented from the description. The fragments
> are similar since there aren't that many ways to get a lock on a
> channel, reposition the channel to the end of the file, write a
> string, and release a lock.
What a load of horse crap. The prudent mode feature in logback was
requested by a paying customer. It took me a week, working full-time,
to bring the code and its accompanying battery of tests to its current
state. You got a there in a few hours and proceeded to resolve 5 other
log4j bugs all in the same evening. You must be a genius.
From what I see in the code the actual method implementing this
facility is less than 20 lines of code. I fully understand that these
lines of code may have been extremely hard to get right.
The question here is then - if the code wasn't copy-pasted but
understood and then described in wording in the bug as Curt said, and
the implementation done from the description in the bug, wouldn't this
be perfectly fine?
Since the code base around the method in question basically has the same
heritage - you might even call it a backport from log4j version 2 to
log4j version 1.2, it would to me seem quite reasonable to expect that
the resulting code would be similar.
--
Thorbjørn Ravn Andersen "...plus... Tubular Bells!"
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
