Yes, and some of the patches and fixes from 2.4+ can be back ported to 2.3.1, etc if there is interest and anyone is willing to help out.
Ralph > On Dec 17, 2015, at 1:16 PM, Gary Gregory <garydgreg...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Hello, > > Log4j 1 has reached EOL. For Java 6 support you can use 2.3. > > Gary > On Dec 17, 2015 11:30 AM, "Dave Glasser" <dglas...@pobox.com> wrote: > >> To any Log4j devs on the list, if Veit has found a bug in 1.2.17, please, >> please, fix it and release 1.2.18. I cannot use 2.5 because my code has to >> run under Java 1.6. I suspect that is the case with a lot of developers who >> deploy on WebSphere or WebLogic. >> >> >> >> From: Veit Guna <veit.g...@gmx.de> >> To: log4j-user@logging.apache.org >> Sent: Thursday, December 17, 2015 12:36 PM >> Subject: still: Memoryleak - org.apache.log4j.helpers.ThreadLocalMap >> >> Hi. >> >> We're developing a Jersey 2(.22.1) REST service with JDK8, log4j 1.2.16 >> and SLF4J 1.7.7 using Tomcat 8.0.23. >> >> Recently I stumbled across the problem mentioned here: >> >> https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50486 >> >> Where Tomcat complains about left behind ThreadLocalMaps. >> >> I updated to 1.2.17 which claims to fix the mentioned problem. >> On first sight, it did. Starting the server and immediately stopping it >> showed no warning anymore - before it did. Yay! >> >> But then I drove some loadtests against our REST service and after >> stopping it the same message appeared again :(. >> >> I double checked that our MDC put/remove is performed within a >> try/finally within a http filter. I also logged, what values >> were put and removed from the MDC - everyting as expected. >> I also made sure, that the key was really removed after >> MDC.remove() by getting the key from the MDC again: null. >> >> Tomcat complained about a specific key/value in the ThreadLocalMap. >> I checked, that this key/value was logged before - and it was >> logged as "removed". So somehow it wasn't _really_ removed. >> >> I digged deeper into the rabbit hole and found this peace of code: >> >> --cut here-- >> final public class ThreadLocalMap extends InheritableThreadLocal { >> >> public >> final >> Object childValue(Object parentValue) { >> Hashtable ht = (Hashtable) parentValue; >> if(ht != null) { >> return ht.clone(); >> } else { >> return null; >> } >> } >> } >> --cut here-- >> >> At this point, the hashtable containing the key/values is cloned >> when a child thread is spawned. That would explain, why I see that >> the complained key/value still exists, although I removed it from the >> MDC. It still exists in the cloned instance on the spawned child thread >> I guess! >> >> I verified it by debugging within eclipse and set a breakpoint there, >> simply returning null instead of ht.clone(). And voila: no complaining >> anymore when shutting down. >> >> Since I'm not too deep into log4j, could someone of the devs please >> shed some light on this, please? >> >> I'm wondering, who will remove the ThreadLocalMap on the spawned child >> threads? Since MDC.remove() will do this only on my parent thread >> manually kicked by the filter. >> >> Or, maybe I'm completely wrong with this :). >> >> Thanks >> Veit >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: log4j-user-unsubscr...@logging.apache.org >> For additional commands, e-mail: log4j-user-h...@logging.apache.org >> >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: log4j-user-unsubscr...@logging.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: log4j-user-h...@logging.apache.org
