On Mon, 2005-04-18 at 17:20 +1200, Simon Kitching wrote: > On Sun, 2005-04-17 at 22:12 -0700, Brian Stansberry wrote: > > > I'm concerned about the memory leak problem with the > > impl jar, but it looks like truly solving that will > > have to wait for the addition of something like > > Simon's ContextClassLoaderLocal to the JDK. (BTW, any > > news on that?) > > Well, Robert suggested I try to raise some interest in submitting it as > an Apache suggestion rather than direct from me. I sent it on direct to > Henri Yandell (Jakarta PMC chair) to see what he thought of the idea. If > I don't get any response there, I'll post direct to the Jakarta pmc > list.
sounds like a good plan (though general at jakarta is more appropriate than the pmc: the pmc's best used only for confidential matters - anyone with an opinion can opine on general) > However it occurred to me that Robert's suggestion of splitting > LogFactory into a true interface/implementation might give a way forward > anyway. This would allow the interface to be deployed in a shared > classloader, but allow the class which actually declares the static > member to be deployed on a per-webapp basis. This would give us back > per-webapp singleton behaviour. I need to actually check out the > DOM_QUIXOTE branch of logging to see whether my understanding of > Robert's emails is correct.... that's what it's there for :) i think that it would be better to be able to provide a user with ways to make JCL perform reasonably in any of the theoretically possible use cases. an impl jar is required for a small number. if it might be unfortunate consequences, we can note that in the troubleshooting document. that way, the user gets to decide upon the tradeoff: should they adopt a different configuration or are they willing to live with the consequences. - robert --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
