Sorry for not looking at this earlier.
At 11:01 07.02.2002 -0700, ajack wrote: >Ceki, > >You wrote... > > > The NDC code is fairly well tested. The only thing I can think of is >forgetting to pop... > >after I wrote: > > > We had a problem like this under the Sybase app server, which I >reported.. > >Which leads me to suspect you do not believe "my" problem exists. I guess >that explains why my bug report is sitting in the bugzilla system seemingly >untouched. ;-) > >Now although I respect confidence in ones code and testing, and I suspect >this is relatively simple/straight forward (given ThreadLocal variables) so >I'd probably stand by it also, I had one piece of evidence that led me to >think bug. No one single thread of mine ever had *all* NDC entries in it, >yet all entries were displayed at once. ***Never some, unless correct, >always all, when incorrect.*** Only Log4j's NDC code (or subsequent >layouts/appenders) could know them all... > >Perhaps I had some layout bug (another person worked on that) or --- as >likely --- perhaps the socket appender or socket server (or remote >NTAppender) somehow got confused, however I feel there is a bug in there. > >I've not since this lately, since all my threads (save JSPs) now do an >NDC.clear() when they (re)start [which could lead me to say my bug, but >again -- *all* above.] This information is just (1) to get it off my chest >;-) and (2) for if you are sitting there idle looking for obscure possible >bugs to find and fix. ;-) > >regards, > >Adam > > >-----Original Message----- > >From: ajack [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > >Sent: 06 February 2002 16:42 > >To: 'Log4J Users List' > >Subject: RE: Nested NDC output from Weblogic > > > > > >Hi Bill, > > > >We had a problem like this under the Sybase app server, which I reported to > >log4j list a month or so ago, after we'd examined our own usage of NDC >('cos > >were worried we were doing things wrong). After a lot of head scratching, > >nothing seemed wrong, we finally noticed that this only happened when > >"Thread=0" was also displayed, as if this was some special thread to log4j. > > > >I can not be certain (partly 'cos nobody has contacted me about the 'bug' >or > >'feature') but I believe that this is something inside log4j. Perhaps it is > >a feature, it considered the thread it was initialised in to be the primary > >thread (thread 0), but unfortunately all threads are up for grabs in some > >implementations of an app server. > > > >Take a peek if it is thread-0 --- and if it is I doubt it is under your > >control, sorry. I was using log4j 1.1.3, not sure about later versions.. > > > >regards > > > >Adam > > >-- >To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -- Ceki Gülcü -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
