Thanks, I'll look into changing the configuration to use elements. I was not aware of the FINALIZE_SESSION marker, though I don't think it would work for our use case. My RFE was originally to just make the appender timeout configurable. But then I thought about it more and decided the real problem was that there is no way to cap the number of sub-appenders (and the scarce resources they consume, like FDs) that can be spun up in response to a burst of activity. In our case, we expose a job engine to clients and use SiftingAppender to direct each job to its own log. But when we get a flood of new job submissions, we ran out of FDs which cripples the system in all sorts of ways that should not be affected by logging. But now we can cap the number of appenders we want to allow, and clients don't need to know to pass a marker stating they're done with the logger. So I guess I'm saying that although the marker is nice, the maxAppenders setting is more like a safety valve to keep Bad Things from happening ;)
-Tommy -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of ceki Sent: Wednesday, October 24, 2012 2:07 PM To: logback developers list Subject: Re: [logback-dev] How to contribute to logback? Submitting pull requests is the way to go. You used attributes for the passing arguments to SiftingAppender. It is far easier to use element in which case you don't have to code anything in SiftAction. Joran (the XML configurator) or Gaffer (the GroovyConfigurator) will inject the arguments into the SiftingAppender instance automatically. Regarding release of resources, SMTPAppender which also uses AppenderTracker will release release resources whenever an event has the marker "FINALIZE_SESSION". This is more convenient than waiting for a timeout as resources are released immediately. Would such an approach work for you? In other words, can you identify a point in your code where after which resources should be released? -- Ceki http://twitter.com/#!/ceki On 24.10.2012 17:31, Becker, Thomas wrote: > I've cloned logback on github and implemented an RFE that I filed. I > went ahead and submitted a pull request, > https://github.com/qos-ch/logback/pull/63, though I noticed that there > are a lot of outstanding pull requests that don't seem to be getting > addressed. Is there something that developers looking to contribute > back need to do, or is it the dev's intention not to accept > contributions from the community? With regard to this change > specifically, we could obviously just use my forked copy, but we would > prefer to utilize an official released version, and I do feel that > other people could benefit from the changes. > > Regards, > Tommy Becker > > _______________________________________________ logback-dev mailing list [email protected] http://mailman.qos.ch/mailman/listinfo/logback-dev _______________________________________________ logback-dev mailing list [email protected] http://mailman.qos.ch/mailman/listinfo/logback-dev
