DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL, BUT PLEASE POST YOUR BUG· RELATED COMMENTS THROUGH THE WEB INTERFACE AVAILABLE AT <http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40303>. ANY REPLY MADE TO THIS MESSAGE WILL NOT BE COLLECTED AND· INSERTED IN THE BUG DATABASE.
http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40303 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution| |WONTFIX ------- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-29 23:31 ------- This is a known cosmetic defect in log4j, though I could not find a previously logged bug in a search. Previously discussed in a thread on log4j-user in late August, early Sept 2005, see http:// marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=log4j-user&m=112567762307503&w=2. Basically, getting timestamp occurs in one synchronization block and output to the appender in another. There is no guarantee that the thread that got the first timestamp will be the first to be released if the thread blocks in the later block. If the issue is significant for you, then I would recommend using the "new" AsyncAppender (in the SVN but not in 1.2.13 or 1.3 alpha 9) with blocking=false. This should minimize the potential for threads to block in a manner that would misorder the timestamps. After much research and discussion, I'm convinced that there is no simple solution to the problem that would not potentially add significant compatibility issues. Maybe in log4j 2.0, this could be addressed. But not in log4j 1.2 or 1.3. -- Configure bugmail: http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the assignee for the bug, or are watching the assignee. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
