At 20:00 12.02.2003 -0500, Raymond DeCampo wrote:
When I looked over the code, my first thought is that it should use a
PreparedStatement instead of a Statement. In this way you will solve a
great number of issues (e.g. escaping ' in string literals would not be
necessary). The configuration
support was another point of importance, I'll consider that
too.
-Original Message-
From: Ceki Gülcü [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, February 12, 2003 4:04 PM
To: Log4J Developers List
Subject: RE: JDBCAppender memory leak issue
Mike,
Have you looked at the code of J
point of importance, I'll consider that
too.
-Original Message-
From: Ceki Gülcü [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, February 12, 2003 4:04 PM
To: Log4J Developers List
Subject: RE: JDBCAppender memory leak issue
Mike,
Have you looked at the code of JDBC Appender? If so,
y may consider JDBC support to be one of the important
differentiators from 1.4 logging.
Mike
-Original Message-
From: Ceki Gülcü [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, February 12, 2003 11:13 AM
To: Log4J Developers List
Subject: RE: JDBCAppender memory leak issue
Have you missed
ssage-
From: Ceki Gülcü [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, February 12, 2003 11:13 AM
To: Log4J Developers List
Subject: RE: JDBCAppender memory leak issue
Have you missed this?
http://jakarta.apache.org/log4j/docs/api/org/apache/log4j/jdbc/JDBCAppender.
html
At 10:21 12.02.2003 -0500, you
No - but doesn't say anything about when is to be removed and replacements.
-Original Message-
From: Ceki Gülcü [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, February 12, 2003 11:13 AM
To: Log4J Developers List
Subject: RE: JDBCAppender memory leak issue
Have you missed this?
-Original Message-
From: Ceki Gülcü [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, February 12, 2003 10:11 AM
To: Log4J Developers List
Subject: Re: JDBCAppender memory leak issue
JDBCAppender is likely to be removed.
At 10:04 12.02.2003 -0500, you wrote:
>How long does something l
Subject: Re: JDBCAppender memory leak issue
JDBCAppender is likely to be removed.
At 10:04 12.02.2003 -0500, you wrote:
>How long does something like this typically take to resolve? ... and does
it
>mean going to a version greater than 1.2.7?
>I apologize for my newness to thi
JDBCAppender is likely to be removed.
At 10:04 12.02.2003 -0500, you wrote:
How long does something like this typically take to resolve? ... and does it
mean going to a version greater than 1.2.7?
I apologize for my newness to this process.
We're intended to use the JDBC appender and this co
How long does something like this typically take to resolve? ... and does it
mean going to a version greater than 1.2.7?
I apologize for my newness to this process.
We're intended to use the JDBC appender and this could obviously be
problematic.
Mike
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL
10 matches
Mail list logo