Can you share a config snippet showing how to use the RemotingAppender like you've described?
What happens when one of the apps goes down? I envision the InterProcessLock as a locking model used between two low/medium chatty apps that want to write to the same file that may or may not be running at the same time. ________________________________ From: Roy Chastain <r...@roychastain.org> To: Log4NET Dev <log4net-dev@logging.apache.org> Sent: Tuesday, September 13, 2011 9:25 AM Subject: RE: Name for MutexLock? I like InterProcessLock and would like to propose MultiProcessLock as my favorite. I HOPE that the documentation will indicate what a bad plan this is and that a remoteing appender etc might be a better plan. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Roy Chastain -----Original Message----- From: Stefan Bodewig [mailto:bode...@apache.org] Sent: Tuesday, September 13, 2011 06:47 To: log4net-dev@logging.apache.org Subject: Name for MutexLock? Hi, LOG4NET-164 introduced a new locking strategy for FileAppender which technically uses a System.Threading.Mutex with a name built from the log file's name. This should allow separate processes to share a log file without repeatedly opening and closing it. The main remaining issue is its name (apart from docs which will follow once the name is settled). Right now it is called MutexLock but that may not convey to users what this actually does - they'd need to know what a Mutex is in the first place. I'm notoriously bad at names so I'm asking here now. Names suggested in the JIRA ticket are "InterProcessLock", "SystemWideLock" and "GlobalLock". Stefan
