If you iterate by index instead of through an iterator, I don't think you get the copy-on-write semantics.
On 26 February 2016 at 09:02, Matt Sicker <boa...@gmail.com> wrote: > In that case, the only thing that sounds like it might be useful would be > updating StatusLogger (unless the GC-free path requires disabling log4j's > logging). > > On 25 February 2016 at 16:56, Remko Popma <remko.po...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> If it's a CopyOnWriteArray*List* we can iterate by index, instead of the >> for-each loop style. However, it may be good to focus on steady state >> application logging. For things only used during initialization there may >> not be much benefit. The test to detect memory allocation would be really >> useful, but I haven't had time to look at this. (If anyone wants to work on >> that that'd be great.) >> >> One thing: currently StatusLogger creates special ParameterizedMessages >> without a reference to the original parameters to prevent memory leaks. Now >> that the formatting logic is separated out to ParameterFormatter, that can >> be optimized to an ObjectMessage (holding a StringBuilder?). The >> specialized ParameterizedMessage subclass can then be removed which is a >> nice simplification. >> >> Sent from my iPhone >> >> On 2016/02/26, at 5:46, Matt Sicker <boa...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> * StatusLogger (StatusListener list) >> * LoggerContext (PropertyChangeListener list) >> * AbstractConfiguration (ConfigurationListener list) >> * PluginManager (String list of packages to scan) >> * DefaultShutdownCallbackRegistry (Cancellable list) >> * And some irrelevant usages in log4j-perf (they're intentionally using >> CopyOnWriteArrayList/Set) >> >> On 25 February 2016 at 14:18, Ralph Goers <ralph.go...@dslextreme.com> >> wrote: >> >>> Do you have a list? >>> >>> Ralph >>> >>> On Feb 25, 2016, at 1:07 PM, Matt Sicker <boa...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> So far I've found a couple places we use a CopyOnWriteArrayList for >>> listeners in StatusLogger and core.LoggerContext. I could refactor these >>> usages to use a custom set-like class like we use for the AppenderControl >>> set, but I don't know if it's worth it. >>> >>> -- >>> Matt Sicker <boa...@gmail.com> >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> -- >> Matt Sicker <boa...@gmail.com> >> >> > > > -- > Matt Sicker <boa...@gmail.com> > -- Matt Sicker <boa...@gmail.com>
