Ceki,
you're absolutely right about I just copied a great deal of the JMSAppender. However,
my intentention was not to contribute this code; it was just for others to take a look
at. If you think this code should be included in the log4j package, I'll do so the
appropriate way including the correct package name, and authors. But, regardless I
should not have removed your name, and I'm sorry for that.
Roger
>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 02/08/01 04:26AM >>>
Roger,
Thank you for your contribution. However, isn't the JMSLogger just an extension of
JMSAppender?
I find it upsetting that you have chosen to remove the original author's name (me in
this case) when most of the code is manifestly copied from JMSAppender. I am not
claiming that the JMSAppender code is the greatest software ever written. However,
copying it without giving credit to the original author is unethical. I am very
careful to grant authorship to contributions over 10 lines. I expect others to do the
same.
By the way, if anyone has made a contribution without being granted authorship, please
let me know. I'll correct the omission promptly. Regards, Ceki
ps: I suggest that you supply your contrib as a patch to JMSAppender. Do include
yourself as an author without deleting the names of previous authors.
At 11:15 07.02.2001 -0800, you wrote:
>Attached is my modified JMSAppender. Include the following properties in your
>properties/xml file:
>
>log4j.appender.A1=com.cj.foundation.log4j.JMSLogger
>log4j.appender.A1.TopicBindingName=testtopic
>log4j.appender.A1.TopicConnectionFactoryBindingName=TopicConnectionFactory
>log4j.appender.A1.InitialContextFactory=com.swiftmq.jndi.InitialContextFactoryImpl
>log4j.appender.A1.ProviderUrl=smqp://localhost:4001/timeout=10000
>log4j.appender.A1.TimeToLive=120000
>
>The performance tests I've done on the JMS logging shows it is far slower than
>writing to a file. The reason being that the appender does not return until the JMS
>server acknowledges persisting the log message(this assumes using persistence when
>publishing). The logging time for JMS ranged from 10ms to 50ms on a Win2k 650MHz box
>with SwiftMq. We're thinking of using JMS for logging exceptions only and using files
>for tracing and general debug. I'm currently working on a way to log to different
>files for different JVMs. This is necessary for application servers where the same
>application can be run in several JVM on the same box at the same time.
>
>Roger
>
>
>>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 02/05/01 12:42AM >>>
>Roger Kjensrud wrote:
>>
>> I extended the JMSAppender and included the url and the initial context
>> factory in the config and it works just fine. If there is any interest I can
>> post the extended JMSAppender for others to use.
>>
>> I'm using SwiftMQ, and I notice that the publishing of the LoggingEvent
>> takes quite a bit longer than for example logging to file. Does anyone else
>> has any experience with the performance of using the JMSAppender or logging
>> to JMS in general?
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Roger
>
>Post it Roger! I would like to see an example configuration on that. Do
>you have already made any exp with the performance of that?
>
>Regards
>Armin Rauch
>
>---------------------------------------------------------------------
>To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
>
>---------------------------------------------------------------------
>To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
----
Ceki Gülcü e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (preferred)
av. de Rumine 5 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
CH-1005 Lausanne
Switzerland Tel: ++41 21 351 23 15
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
