At 20:00 12.02.2003 -0500, Raymond DeCampo wrote:
When I looked over the code, my first thought is that it should use a
PreparedStatement instead of a Statement. In this way you will solve a
great number of issues (e.g. escaping ' in string literals would not be
necessary). The configuration
support was another point of importance, I'll consider that
too.
-Original Message-
From: Ceki Gülcü [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, February 12, 2003 4:04 PM
To: Log4J Developers List
Subject: RE: JDBCAppender memory leak issue
Mike,
Have you looked at the code of J
point of importance, I'll consider that
too.
-Original Message-
From: Ceki Gülcü [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, February 12, 2003 4:04 PM
To: Log4J Developers List
Subject: RE: JDBCAppender memory leak issue
Mike,
Have you looked at the code of JDBC Appender? If so,
y may consider JDBC support to be one of the important
differentiators from 1.4 logging.
Mike
-Original Message-
From: Ceki Gülcü [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, February 12, 2003 11:13 AM
To: Log4J Developers List
Subject: RE: JDBCAppender memory leak issue
Have you missed
ssage-
From: Ceki Gülcü [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, February 12, 2003 11:13 AM
To: Log4J Developers List
Subject: RE: JDBCAppender memory leak issue
Have you missed this?
http://jakarta.apache.org/log4j/docs/api/org/apache/log4j/jdbc/JDBCAppender.
html
At 10:21 12.02.2003 -0500, you
No - but doesn't say anything about when is to be removed and replacements.
-Original Message-
From: Ceki Gülcü [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, February 12, 2003 11:13 AM
To: Log4J Developers List
Subject: RE: JDBCAppender memory leak issue
Have you missed this?
-Original Message-
From: Ceki Gülcü [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, February 12, 2003 10:11 AM
To: Log4J Developers List
Subject: Re: JDBCAppender memory leak issue
JDBCAppender is likely to be removed.
At 10:04 12.02.2003 -0500, you wrote:
>How long does something l
Subject: Re: JDBCAppender memory leak issue
JDBCAppender is likely to be removed.
At 10:04 12.02.2003 -0500, you wrote:
>How long does something like this typically take to resolve? ... and does
it
>mean going to a version greater than 1.2.7?
>I apologize for my newness to thi
JDBCAppender is likely to be removed.
At 10:04 12.02.2003 -0500, you wrote:
How long does something like this typically take to resolve? ... and does it
mean going to a version greater than 1.2.7?
I apologize for my newness to this process.
We're intended to use the JDBC appender and this co
