Hi everybody. Remember this thread? X) Well, I'm back on this problem once again. So far it has been proposed that a long term solution would be either:
a) to stop using LoggerAppenderPool Personally I think we could do without it, in fact my rewrite of the XML configurator does not use an appender pool at all. I believe the same could be achieved for other configurators easily. b) make LoggerAppenderPool non-static, and instantiate it by the configurators This will work as well, but I think it's not the most elegant solution. Now, obviously my vote is for a. Do you have any preferences? As a quick-fix, I will implement clearing of the LoggerAppenderPool in LoggerHierarchy::resetConfiguration(). This soulution will do until we agree on a more permanent solution. Regards, Ivan On 4 May 2010 08:39, Ivan Habunek <[email protected]> wrote: > On 4.5.2010 7:03, Christian Grobmeier wrote: >> >> It still works for me. But the running order might be different on >> different os. I heard from some other guy who has this failure. > > It is definitely a problem related to the order in which the tests run. As a > matter of interest, which OS are you using? I tested on WinXP and Debian. > >> First, LoggerAppenderPool is only used by Configurators, I think we >> should move it in this package and not on leave it in the root >> package. >> >> Second, I don't see that LoggerAppenderPool needs to be statically >> available. If we create a new LoggerAppenderPool object in each >> configurators constructor and use the object then this should be >> solved without any additional reset calls or clear methods. >> >> What do you think? > > I've been working on the XML configurator and, frankly, I don't see the need > for LoggerAppenderPool at all, at least not in the way it is currently used. > As you said, it is only used by the configurator classes, and if this is the > only place it is meant to be used, then it can easily be replaced by a > private variable within the configurator class. > > Maybe I missed something? Otherwise, your ideas look OK. :) > > Regards, > Ivan > > >
