Re: log4j features and general readyness for use

On Wed, 2006-06-28 at 00:04 -0500, Curt Arnold wrote: > My personal feeling is that 1.3 is in a no-win situation. Backwards > compatibility was not rigidly enforced during development. While > there has been some success reworking the code to be compatible with > 1.2.x, I do not think that

DO NOT REPLY [Bug 39922] New: - Broken links in log4j docs

DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL, BUT PLEASE POST YOUR BUG· RELATED COMMENTS THROUGH THE WEB INTERFACE AVAILABLE AT . ANY REPLY MADE TO THIS MESSAGE WILL NOT BE COLLECTED AND· INSERTED IN THE BUG DATABASE. http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bu

DO NOT REPLY [Bug 38137] - Monitor deadlock in AsyncAppender

DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL, BUT PLEASE POST YOUR BUG· RELATED COMMENTS THROUGH THE WEB INTERFACE AVAILABLE AT . ANY REPLY MADE TO THIS MESSAGE WILL NOT BE COLLECTED AND· INSERTED IN THE BUG DATABASE. http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bu

Re: log4j features and general readyness for use

Thanks Curt.  We're not using AsyncAppender, and the deadlock we're seeing involves a custom appender extending AppenderSkeleton, in the doAppend() method.  From reading of others' issues like this it sounds like it's related to the RollingAppender issues.  Unfortunately the thread dump we have doe

Re: log4j features and general readyness for use

On Jun 28, 2006, at 11:01 AM, Elias Ross wrote: On Wed, 2006-06-28 at 00:04 -0500, Curt Arnold wrote: My personal feeling is that 1.3 is in a no-win situation. Backwards compatibility was not rigidly enforced during development. While there has been some success reworking the code to be com