Hey, I couldn't have said it better than Paul: I agree with everything he says. This is not a good 1.2 candidate, but should be a requirement for 1.3.0.
Yoav Shapira System Design and Management Fellow MIT Sloan School of Management / School of Engineering Cambridge, MA USA [EMAIL PROTECTED] / [EMAIL PROTECTED] > -----Original Message----- > From: Paul Smith [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Thursday, July 14, 2005 6:02 PM > To: Log4J Developers List > Subject: Re: Bug #24159 > > That is a biggie isn't it... > > I feel quite a bit uncomfortable about attempting this for 1.2.x. My > rationale is that 1.2.x has been around a LONG time now. I know > "better the devil you know" is not a great way to develop software, > but in this case I think we may end up creating more problems for our > users than we solve. I hedge towards just making sure this problem > can't happen in the 1.3.x series (which I believe it can't with the > Read/Write lock stuff Ceki did). > > Paul > > On 15/07/2005, at 7:32 AM, Mark Womack wrote: > > > Does anyone want to weigh in on this bug? Besides adding TRACE, it > > looks > > like this is the most controversial bug fix. > > > > http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24159 > > > > -Mark > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
