Let me know if the two recent commits fix your problems: https://github.com/ops4j/org.ops4j.pax.logging/commits/master If so, we can start a release of 1.6.2
On Mon, Apr 25, 2011 at 08:48, Guillaume Nodet <gno...@gmail.com> wrote: > Fixing those issues will be way easier. > I'll investigate those tomorrow. > > On Sunday, April 24, 2011, Bartosz Kowalewski > <kowalewski.bart...@gmail.com> wrote: >> Hi Niclas, Guillaume, >> >> 1. I agree - amount of work would be great ;-). >> >> 2. I also agree with the comment about the Category class. It's the >> main source of our problems. However, as far as I know Category >> synchronization is only fixed in Pax Logging API. Pax Logging Service >> does not override this class when embedding the original log4j lib. >> Only these classes >> https://github.com/ops4j/org.ops4j.pax.logging/tree/master/pax-logging-service/src/main/java/org/apache/log4j >> seem to be overridden. We have been observing performance issues with >> Pax Logging Service which seems to prove that the Category related >> synchronization problem hasn't been fixed yet in Pax Logging Service. >> Anyway, a quick fix (for JDK >=1.5) is available >> here:https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51047 >> >> 3. I also agree that the async appender issue is the second source of >> issues. It hasn't been fixed in Pax Logging Service yet. A quick fix >> is available here: >> https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51048 >> >> When these are fixed in Pax Logging Service, moving to a different >> logging framework would not make much sense (at least from my point of >> view :) ). >> >> Thanks, >> Bartek >> >> 2011/4/23 Guillaume Nodet <gno...@gmail.com>: >>> I think one of the main issue with log4j synchronization is in the >>> Category class and pax-logging has a rewritten implementation so that >>> should not be an issue. >>> We could easily rewrite a new async appender without synchronization >>> and include it if needed. We could even maintain some forked versions >>> of log4j if needed (we already have a few custom stuff anyway). >>> Switching to a different backend would require a sustantial amount of >>> work as Niclas said. >>> >>> With the synchronization issue on the Category class not being a >>> problem with log4j, would switching to a different backend be really >>> useful ? >>> >>> On Fri, Apr 22, 2011 at 10:30, Bartosz Kowalewski >>> <kowalewski.bart...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> Hi guys, >>>> >>>> Are there any plans to move Pax Logging backend (Pax Logging Service) >>>> from Log4j to a different logging framework? >>>> In our highly multithreaded environment we have been observing issues >>>> with suboptimal synchronization mechanisms inside Log4j (Log4j called >>>> by Pax Logging Service). Log4j is known for its problems with >>>> performance and it seems that there are no plans to improve the way it >>>> operates. I don't see much activity at Log4j bugzilla. Unfortunately, >>>> these Log4j issues are causing performance of the whole app to be >>>> decreased even if async appenders are used. >>>> >>>> Thanks, >>>> Bartek >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> general mailing list >>>> general@lists.ops4j.org >>>> http://lists.ops4j.org/mailman/listinfo/general >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Cheers, >>> Guillaume Nodet >>> ------------------------ >>> Blog: http://gnodet.blogspot.com/ >>> ------------------------ >>> Open Source SOA >>> http://fusesource.com >>> >>> Connect at CamelOne May 24-26 >>> The Open Source Integration Conference >>> http://camelone.com/ >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> general mailing list >>> general@lists.ops4j.org >>> http://lists.ops4j.org/mailman/listinfo/general >>> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> general mailing list >> general@lists.ops4j.org >> http://lists.ops4j.org/mailman/listinfo/general >> > > -- > Cheers, > Guillaume Nodet > ------------------------ > Blog: http://gnodet.blogspot.com/ > ------------------------ > Open Source SOA > http://fusesource.com > > Connect at CamelOne May 24-26 > The Open Source Integration Conference > http://camelone.com/ > -- Cheers, Guillaume Nodet ------------------------ Blog: http://gnodet.blogspot.com/ ------------------------ Open Source SOA http://fusesource.com Connect at CamelOne May 24-26 The Open Source Integration Conference http://camelone.com/ _______________________________________________ general mailing list general@lists.ops4j.org http://lists.ops4j.org/mailman/listinfo/general
