On Thu, 2005-12-22 at 00:46 -0600, Curt Arnold wrote: > I'd prefer to expedite the 2.0 branch and get log4j using a much > finer grained locking than maintaining two parallel sets of appenders > with different locking characteristics.
I'd be happy to help expedite a 2.0 release, but it seems ever further away. And I anticipate (in six months) you'll find yourself in a similarly unpleasant situation for 2.0 where people demand application binary compatibility. It's also likely people are going to want both styles of appenders. You Joe Java coder might not understand (or want to learn about) read/write locking rules. A good analogy is how the new JDK 1.5 java.util.concurrent.* collection classes did not deprecate existing locked collections classes, nor were java.util.Vector or java.util.Hashtable considered for removal. The concurrent library I proposed is around 1000 lines of new code/comments to maintain, compared to about 44,000 lines total for the existing log4j code base. Frankly, all I would like from the log4j is an endorsement and place in svn, I can maintain and deal with the implementation details. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
