[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LOG4J2-1121?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=14876282#comment-14876282
]
Remko Popma commented on LOG4J2-1121:
-------------------------------------
The Strategy pattern gives extra complexity though and is only worth it if the
performance difference is large. My performance testing so far hardly show any
performance impact. This is based on my last proposal of calling
LoggerConfig.beforeLog() from Logger.logMessage(), with Ralph's correction that
we should grab the volatile privateConfig field again and retry if beforeLog()
returns false. I would like to see the code that Ralph mentioned had bad
performance. Also, how was performance measured?
> LoggerConfig performance improvement: remove waitForCompletion and associated
> fields
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: LOG4J2-1121
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LOG4J2-1121
> Project: Log4j 2
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Components: Core
> Affects Versions: 2.3
> Reporter: Remko Popma
>
> This ticket follows up on LOG4J2-1120. Out of the three changes identified in
> LOG4J2-1120, only two could be implemented in time for the 2.4 release.
> This ticket tracks the remaining work for the third change:
> * Since {{clearAppenders()}} is only called after all appenders have been
> stopped, {{waitForCompletion()}} may no longer be necessary (unless I am
> missing something here). If so, the {{shutdownLock}}, {{shutdown}} and
> {{counter}} fields can be removed. Not incrementing the atomic counters with
> every event in the hot path should give better performance.
> LOG4J2-1120 shows benchmark results that support this.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.4#6332)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
