<https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/logging/log4net/trunk/src/site/xdoc/re lease/faq.xml> looks good with the exception of ") and has also be paid for by a loss in performance."
May I suggest a rewording of ". The acquisition and release of a Mutex for every log entry to be written will result in a loss of performance, but the Mutex is preferable to the use of MinimalLock." Are you seriously suggesting that we allow the use of a Mutex lock in the new RFA? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Roy Chastain -----Original Message----- From: Stefan Bodewig [mailto:bode...@apache.org] Sent: Tuesday, September 20, 2011 07:30 To: log4net-dev@logging.apache.org Subject: Re: Name for MutexLock? On 2011-09-13, Roy Chastain wrote: > I like InterProcessLock and would like to propose MultiProcessLock as > my favorite. InterProcessLock it is. > I HOPE that the documentation will indicate what a bad plan this is > and that a remoteing appender etc might be a better plan. Please take a look at the re-worded FAQ entry in <https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/logging/log4net/trunk/src/site/xdoc/re lease/faq.xml> Stefan
