Re: logging-log4j2 git commit: [LOG4J2-2212]Unnecessary contention in CopyOnWriteSortedArrayThreadContextMap. [LOG4J2-2213] Unnecessary contention in GarbageFreeSortedArrayThreadContextMap.

2018-01-23 Thread Gary Gregory
On Tue, Jan 23, 2018 at 3:34 PM, Ralph Goers wrote: > Static vars are camelCase. Only class names are CamelCase. Isn’t that > documented in our conventions? > Fixed in git master. Thank you for the catch. Gary > > Ralph > > > On Jan 23, 2018, at 3:32 PM, Gary Gregory > wrote: > > > > On Tue,

Re: logging-log4j2 git commit: [LOG4J2-2212]Unnecessary contention in CopyOnWriteSortedArrayThreadContextMap. [LOG4J2-2213] Unnecessary contention in GarbageFreeSortedArrayThreadContextMap.

2018-01-23 Thread Ralph Goers
Static vars are camelCase. Only class names are CamelCase. Isn’t that documented in our conventions? Ralph > On Jan 23, 2018, at 3:32 PM, Gary Gregory wrote: > > On Tue, Jan 23, 2018 at 3:01 PM, Remko Popma wrote: > >> This solution should work. Thanks for taking care of this, Gary! >> >> O

Re: logging-log4j2 git commit: [LOG4J2-2212]Unnecessary contention in CopyOnWriteSortedArrayThreadContextMap. [LOG4J2-2213] Unnecessary contention in GarbageFreeSortedArrayThreadContextMap.

2018-01-23 Thread Gary Gregory
On Tue, Jan 23, 2018 at 3:01 PM, Remko Popma wrote: > This solution should work. Thanks for taking care of this, Gary! > > One thing, why are the new fields capitalized? It makes the field names > look like class names in the code. I’ve never seen that convention. Should > they not be simply lowe

Re: logging-log4j2 git commit: [LOG4J2-2212]Unnecessary contention in CopyOnWriteSortedArrayThreadContextMap. [LOG4J2-2213] Unnecessary contention in GarbageFreeSortedArrayThreadContextMap.

2018-01-23 Thread Remko Popma
This solution should work. Thanks for taking care of this, Gary! One thing, why are the new fields capitalized? It makes the field names look like class names in the code. I’ve never seen that convention. Should they not be simply lower case? (Shameless plug) Every java main() method deserves h

Re: [log4cxx] Current State

2018-01-23 Thread Matt Sicker
On 23 January 2018 at 13:06, Thorsten Schöning wrote: > Please finde the changed file attached. I think I strictly followed > the docs, simply added at the bottom and published on the mentioned > server. But you should have a look yourself I didn't accidently break > anything. > > http://pgpkeys.

Re: [log4cxx] Current State

2018-01-23 Thread Thorsten Schöning
Guten Tag Matt Sicker, am Montag, 22. Januar 2018 um 20:45 schrieben Sie: > Yes, you can send us your key and any PMC member can commit it to the KEYS > file. Please finde the changed file attached. I think I strictly followed the docs, simply added at the bottom and published on the mentioned se

Re: [log4j] The shape of Log4j

2018-01-23 Thread Ralph Goers
> On Jan 23, 2018, at 6:51 AM, Gary Gregory wrote: > > On Jan 23, 2018 5:09 AM, "Mikael Ståldal" wrote: > > There is no NoSQL appender. There are Cassandra, CouchDB and MongoDB > appenders. I don't think we should bundle them together. > > > Note that these are already separate modules/jar

Re: [log4j] The shape of Log4j

2018-01-23 Thread Gary Gregory
On Jan 23, 2018 5:09 AM, "Mikael Ståldal" wrote: There is no NoSQL appender. There are Cassandra, CouchDB and MongoDB appenders. I don't think we should bundle them together. Note that these are already separate modules/jar produced out of the main repo. Gary On 2018-01-22 23:29, Ralph Goe

Re: [log4j] log4j-core test speed breakdown

2018-01-23 Thread Gary Gregory
It would be nice to heard from Mike his thoughts on my change since he added the delay in the first place. I am worried about any 'bite you later ' factor :-p On Jan 22, 2018 11:31 PM, "Remko Popma" wrote: > Nice!! > > (Shameless plug) Every java main() method deserves http://picocli.info > > >

Re: svn commit: r1821805 - /logging/site/cms/trunk/content/security.twig

2018-01-23 Thread Stefan Bodewig
On 2018-01-22, Matt Sicker wrote: > Thanks for taking care of this! We have a CVE in Log4j 2 we can link to on > this page as well. My idea rather was to mimic what the Commons project is doing. In this case you'd add a security page to the log4j website, something along the lines of https://com

Re: [log4j] The shape of Log4j

2018-01-23 Thread Mikael Ståldal
There is no NoSQL appender. There are Cassandra, CouchDB and MongoDB appenders. I don't think we should bundle them together. On 2018-01-22 23:29, Ralph Goers wrote: If it was up to me I would move the following Appenders: Cassandra, Flume, JDBC, JMS, JPA, HTTP, Kafka, NoSQL, SMTP, ZeroMQ/Jer

Re: [log4j] The shape of Log4j

2018-01-23 Thread Remko Popma
> On Jan 23, 2018, at 7:29, Ralph Goers wrote: > > IMO the main repo should contain the stuff 80% (or more) of our user’s use > and the stuff that is common across all plugins. So the file appenders and > console appenders all belong, probably most of the existing lookups and > filters. Sinc

Re: [log4j] The shape of Log4j

2018-01-23 Thread Jochen Wiedmann
On Sun, Jan 21, 2018 at 4:55 PM, Gary Gregory wrote: > - Put everything back into one repo (Chainsaw too?) In general, yes. However, Chainsaw would be one step too far. From my point of view, Chainsaw is a consumer, and not a part of log4j-core. At the most, split a meaningful part out of Chains