DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL, BUT PLEASE POST YOUR BUG·
RELATED COMMENTS THROUGH THE WEB INTERFACE AVAILABLE AT
http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38236.
ANY REPLY MADE TO THIS MESSAGE WILL NOT BE COLLECTED AND·
INSERTED IN THE BUG DATABASE.
DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL, BUT PLEASE POST YOUR BUG·
RELATED COMMENTS THROUGH THE WEB INTERFACE AVAILABLE AT
http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38236.
ANY REPLY MADE TO THIS MESSAGE WILL NOT BE COLLECTED AND·
INSERTED IN THE BUG DATABASE.
DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL, BUT PLEASE POST YOUR BUG·
RELATED COMMENTS THROUGH THE WEB INTERFACE AVAILABLE AT
http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22934.
ANY REPLY MADE TO THIS MESSAGE WILL NOT BE COLLECTED AND·
INSERTED IN THE BUG DATABASE.
DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL, BUT PLEASE POST YOUR BUG·
RELATED COMMENTS THROUGH THE WEB INTERFACE AVAILABLE AT
http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38236.
ANY REPLY MADE TO THIS MESSAGE WILL NOT BE COLLECTED AND·
INSERTED IN THE BUG DATABASE.
DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL, BUT PLEASE POST YOUR BUG·
RELATED COMMENTS THROUGH THE WEB INTERFACE AVAILABLE AT
http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22934.
ANY REPLY MADE TO THIS MESSAGE WILL NOT BE COLLECTED AND·
INSERTED IN THE BUG DATABASE.
Curt Arnold wrote:
Any thoughts on addressing the problem by modifying AsyncAppender to
have discard when full option?
Hm, it looks like such option can work for me. I will investigate the
problem more accurately and provide a patch in a week.
Mark Womack wrote:
We appreciate the effort and contribution!
Thank you for help. I will provide my code ASAP.
WBR, Alexey Kharlamov
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL
At 07:51 AM 1/12/2006, Curt Arnold wrote:
I committed a pass at external message formatting classes in the
sandbox. The code can be checked out using:
svn co http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/logging/sandbox/log4j/ formatter
formatter
and can be built using either Maven (JDK 1.5 only) or Ant.
General SLF4j concern:
I may be in the minority (I'm sure I am), but slf4j's change to require
logger.debug(string) instead of object may have a performance rationale but it
has the effect of preventing filters from being able to perform any analysis
based on what was passed into the logging
On Jan 12, 2006, at 9:47 AM, Ceki Gülcü wrote:
What is wrong with enshrining a solution that is optimized for the
task at hand by being simple, easy to use and CPU effective?
If you are providing one true way of doing something (in this case,
formatting messages for logging), then your
On Jan 12, 2006, at 9:47 AM, Ceki Gülcü wrote:
Unfortunately, SLF4J support was recently removed. I
would like to see it restored. I can personally vouch that keeping
NLOG4J in sync with SLF4J is almost effortless, especially since the
SLF4J is now quite stable. Unless there is opposition, I'd
On Thu, 2006-01-12 at 12:33 -0800, Scott Deboy wrote:
I may be in the minority (I'm sure I am), but slf4j's change to
require logger.debug(string) instead of object may have a performance
rationale
One thing I like the log4j design, was being able to log non-string
objects. I've used it
12 matches
Mail list logo
