Bug #9750 is fixed only if you consider the behavior of having an dying app reap the AsynchAppender's Dispacher thread before all events are logged. I think it would be good to make this behavior instrumented instead of "always use daemon threads" approach. There is a 3rd party commercial product that we use here at Retek that has dependencies on Log4j and we need this toggleable behavior for our code to co-exist with the 3rd party code.
-----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Fri 9/27/2002 3:26 AM To: Log4J Developers List Cc: Subject: RE: Daemon Thread for AsyncAppender Ceki, Sorry, I should have looked at #9750 closer and realized that it was marked as fixed. We can review Nick's submission for inclusion anyways. One is not required to call close() to allow the jvm to exit, as the last comment in the bug suggests? Since the thread is daemon, it should just exit. -Mark > -----Original Message----- > From: Ceki Gulcu [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ] > Sent: Thursday, September 26, 2002 7:16 AM > To: Log4J Developers List > Subject: RE: Daemon Thread for AsyncAppender > > > > I don't understand. The Dispatcher thread is already marked as a > daemon (as > of log4j 1.2.4). What gives? > > At 09:08 26.09.2002 -0500, you wrote: > >That sure as hell would fix the problem. This is what caused me to > >investigate the issue further. I'll prepare the patch during my > lunch break > >today. > > > >-----Original Message----- > >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ] > >Sent: Thu 9/26/2002 12:41 AM > >To: Log4J Developers List > >Cc: Forsyth, Zachary; Bauman, Nick > >Subject: RE: Daemon Thread for AsyncAppender > > > > > > > >Nick, would this also solve log4j bug#9750? > > > >http://nagoya.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=9750 <http://nagoya.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=9750> > ><http://nagoya.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=9750 <http://nagoya.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=9750> > > > > >I think we would be interested in your patch. Post it when you have a > >chance. > > > >-Mark > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Bauman, Nick [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > ><mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > ] > > > Sent: Friday, September 20, 2002 8:07 AM > > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > Cc: Forsyth, Zachary > > > Subject: Daemon Thread for AsyncAppender > > > > > > > > > Would the log4j developers be interested in a patch to log4j > that allows a > > > boolean mutator on AsynchAppender's constructor to have its Dispatcher > > > thread to be a daemon instead of a normal one? I find this > feature very > > > useful for running a project in a commercial application > server which does > > > not give me a way to call close() on AsynchAppender. > > > > > > Thanks for your time > > > > > > Nick Bauman > > > > > > -- > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: > > > <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > ><mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > > For additional commands, e-mail: > > > <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > ><mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >-- > >To unsubscribe, e-mail: > <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > >For additional commands, e-mail: > <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > -- > Ceki > > TCP implementations will follow a general principle of robustness: be > conservative in what you do, be liberal in what you accept from > others. -- Jon Postel, RFC 793 > > > > -- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: > <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > For additional commands, e-mail: > <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >
<<application/ms-tnef>>
-- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
