Gary, I'll look at the test (but have to leave for work now).
About the name, yes, let's change it. The main differences with the existing FileAppenders are - the Fast versions are always buffered - the Fast versions use a RandomAccessFile instead of a Stream, which was quite a bit faster in my testing (If you're interested, I got there because of this article: http://mechanical-sympathy.blogspot.jp/2011/12/java-sequential-io-performance.html ) Suggestions for better names: - RandomAccessFileAppender - RAFileAppender Other suggestions welcome... -Remko ________________________________ From: Gary Gregory <[email protected]> To: Log4J Developers List <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, July 10, 2013 7:10 AM Subject: Fast file problem with XML layouts Hi All: I created and @Ignored this failing test for a FastFileAppender with a 'complete' (aka well-formed) XML layout: org.apache.logging.log4j.core.appender.FastXmlFileAppenderTest which is a duplicate of the normal file test I also just created: org.apache.logging.log4j.core.appender.XmlFileAppenderTest Is this a bug or did I misconfigure the test? Also, more Javadoc on FastFileAppender would help. Can we change "Fast" to something more meaningful and descriptive? No Javadoc, no idea, but I did see a thread I think... is this an AsyncFileAppender? How is it different than wrapping a file appender with an AsyncApppender? Filtering? What else? Thank you, Gary -- E-Mail: [email protected] | [email protected] Java Persistence with Hibernate, Second Edition JUnit in Action, Second Edition Spring Batch in Action Blog: http://garygregory.wordpress.com Home: http://garygregory.com/ Tweet! http://twitter.com/GaryGregory
