There was already a Map there. To your point though, that bit of rework to AppenderTrackerImpl was not strictly necessary but I felt the existing code, which essentially re-implemented LinkedHashMap in a clumsy way was pretty low hanging fruit. I'd be willing to make additional changes if the maintainer showed interest in accepting the patch, but my immediate need has passed. My observation has been that the majority of the pull requests to Logback seem to get no comments at all. But I went ahead and reopened this one here: https://github.com/qos-ch/logback/pull/107
-Tommy ________________________________________ From: Logback-user [[email protected]] on behalf of diroussel [[email protected]] Sent: Friday, April 12, 2013 12:12 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [logback-user] SiftingAppender and RollingFileAppender, roll on close. Thomas, That functionality looks good. In order to get accepted, maybe you can make your changes to AppenderTrackerImpl less invasive? In AppenderTrackerImpl, you are subclassing LinkedHashMap instead of using ch.qos.logback.classic.pattern.LRUCache. But really there is no need for a map. Just keep the existing head and tail references, keep a count variablle. If the count gets to high, then remove entries from the tail. I like that you've added unit tests and the code formatting is consistent with the rest of the code base. David -- View this message in context: http://logback.10977.n7.nabble.com/SiftingAppender-and-RollingFileAppender-roll-on-close-tp11840p11862.html Sent from the Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com. _______________________________________________ Logback-user mailing list [email protected] http://mailman.qos.ch/mailman/listinfo/logback-user _______________________________________________ Logback-user mailing list [email protected] http://mailman.qos.ch/mailman/listinfo/logback-user
