On Fri, 2 Dec 2005, Endre Stølsvik wrote:
|
| One more thing about concurrent.jar: if the inclusion of a entirely new
| library dependency sounds bad (which I personally think!), one have the
| option of just "stealing" the parts that are necessary: the magic is not
| in new JVM features, but
On Fri, 2 Dec 2005, Yoav Shapira wrote:
| (for example, on the Tomcat mailing lists, we've seen far more JSE5 than
| JDK 1.4 queries not just recently, but for almost two years now),
Do remember that the user base (hopefully!) also is _expanding_, and that
_new_ users (and instances?) probably
Yoav Shapira wrote:
Hi,
Doug Lea's concurrent library is a good piece of software. We used it
at my old workplace for a couple of years in heavy apps, never a
problem. And now it's part of JSE 5 so future migration will be easy.
One could also imagine a simple class that detects if running on
Hi,
Doug Lea's concurrent library is a good piece of software. We used it
at my old workplace for a couple of years in heavy apps, never a
problem. And now it's part of JSE 5 so future migration will be easy.
One could also imagine a simple class that detects if running on JSE5
and later and the
On Thu, 1 Dec 2005, Jess Holle wrote:
| Has anyone tried replacing the synchronization in log4j with Java 5 locks to
| and done any benchmarks?
|
| I'm curious as I think it would be interesting to have a lock factory which
| produces something like the existing locks for pre-Java-5 JVMs and Java
Paul Smith wrote:
I guess what I was thinking was an incremental approach in 1.3 that
does not break backwards compatibility. [I'd think that would be a
better use of time/energy than the Priority vs. Level and Category
vs. Logger mess...]
I'm against requiring Java 5 for log4j 1.3. 2.0
I guess what I was thinking was an incremental approach in 1.3 that
does not break backwards compatibility. [I'd think that would be a
better use of time/energy than the Priority vs. Level and Category
vs. Logger mess...]
I'm against requiring Java 5 for log4j 1.3. 2.0 though is fine.
On Thu, 2005-12-01 at 10:22 -0600, Curt Arnold wrote:
>
> I have suggested targeting Java 5 in log4j 2.0. However, I plan on
> experimenting with substantially reducing the scope of locks in
> log4j
> 2.0 instead of just incrementally using new locking features with
> the
> current approach
Curt Arnold wrote:
On Dec 1, 2005, at 9:22 AM, Jess Holle wrote:
Has anyone tried replacing the synchronization in log4j with Java 5
locks to and done any benchmarks?
I'm curious as I think it would be interesting to have a lock
factory which produces something like the existing locks for
On Dec 1, 2005, at 9:22 AM, Jess Holle wrote:
Has anyone tried replacing the synchronization in log4j with Java 5
locks to and done any benchmarks?
I'm curious as I think it would be interesting to have a lock
factory which produces something like the existing locks for pre-
Java-5 JVMs a
10 matches
Mail list logo
