On Nov 15, 2007, at 3:35 PM, Paul Smith wrote:
actually I've found a problem with the commit.
If ZeroconfSocketHubAppender class calls super.activateOptions()
which then creates the SocketServer, the actual creation of the
ServerSocket is done by another thread (see the SocketMonitor
con
actually I've found a problem with the commit.
If ZeroconfSocketHubAppender class calls super.activateOptions() which
then creates the SocketServer, the actual creation of the ServerSocket
is done by another thread (see the SocketMonitor constructor), which
means the call back to the protec
That chunk seems just like the IDE at work moving things around.
Honestly, is that really that much of a deal? I agree a total
reformat of the class is not a good idea, but I don't see the need to
get too anal about something like that..
But I didn't see much benefit from hiding t
I've logged a bug report (43874) for the SocketHubAppender
enhancement and committed the createServerSocket() patch and updated
the changes.xml for 1.2.16. I'm not saying that has to be the final
approach, but I think there is general agreement that we can do
something minimal and safe in
On Nov 15, 2007, at 4:36 AM, Paul Smith wrote:
Ok, i'm a bit tired, so I ended up just going simple and pretty
much following Curt's idea, see below. Thoughts?
Index: src/main/java/org/apache/log4j/net/SocketHubAppender.java
On 07/11/2007, at 7:15 PM, Curt Arnold wrote:
On Nov 7, 2007, at 1:55 AM, Curt Arnold wrote:
Okay, I'm about ready to fall over, but I looked at zeroconf and
see your motivation for moving the binding onto the main thread so
you continue the set up in
ZeroConfSocketHubAppender.activateO
On 07/11/2007, at 7:15 PM, Curt Arnold wrote:
On Nov 7, 2007, at 1:55 AM, Curt Arnold wrote:
Okay, I'm about ready to fall over, but I looked at zeroconf and
see your motivation for moving the binding onto the main thread so
you continue the set up in
ZeroConfSocketHubAppender.activateO
On Nov 7, 2007, at 1:55 AM, Curt Arnold wrote:
Okay, I'm about ready to fall over, but I looked at zeroconf and
see your motivation for moving the binding onto the main thread so
you continue the set up in
ZeroConfSocketHubAppender.activateOptions. However instead of
changing the behavi
On Nov 5, 2007, at 6:55 PM, Paul Smith wrote:
I'd like to propose a change to SocketHubAppender code to allow it
automatically choose a free port on the local host if the Port
property is configured with 0.
This will allow the Zeroconf module to be more useful, and allow
simpler configur
+1
Scott
-Original Message-
From: Paul Smith [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Mon 11/5/2007 4:55 PM
To: Log4J Developers List
Subject: [PROPOSAL] SocketHubAppender change - allow auto port choice
I'd like to propose a change to SocketHubAppender code to allow it
automatically c
I'd like to propose a change to SocketHubAppender code to allow it automatically choose a free port on the local host if the Port property is configured with 0.This will allow the Zeroconf module to be more useful, and allow simpler configuration for multiple applications on the same host. We have
11 matches
Mail list logo
