commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Simon Kitching <>
Subject Re: [logging] update docs to specify that java 1.1 is supported
Date Mon, 18 Apr 2005 05:20:20 GMT
On Sun, 2005-04-17 at 22:12 -0700, Brian Stansberry wrote:

> I'm concerned about the memory leak problem with the
> impl jar, but it looks like truly solving that will
> have to wait for the addition of something like
> Simon's ContextClassLoaderLocal to the JDK.  (BTW, any
> news on that?)

Well, Robert suggested I try to raise some interest in submitting it as
an Apache suggestion rather than direct from me. I sent it on direct to
Henri Yandell (Jakarta PMC chair) to see what he thought of the idea. If
I don't get any response there, I'll post direct to the Jakarta pmc

However it occurred to me that Robert's suggestion of splitting
LogFactory into a true interface/implementation might give a way forward
anyway. This would allow the interface to be deployed in a shared
classloader, but allow the class which actually declares the static
member to be deployed on a per-webapp basis. This would give us back
per-webapp singleton behaviour. I need to actually check out the
DOM_QUIXOTE branch of logging to see whether my understanding of
Robert's emails is correct....

> I also owe a patch to the user guide discussing best
> practices re not caching Log in a static field.  If no
> one objects, I can also include comments on JDK 1.1
> support.  

That would be cool. However I would like to state my personal opinion
here: that deploying *anything* in a shared classloader sucks, and that
anyone who does such a thing deserves what they get! Doing this really
seems to me to be optimisation-over-correctness, and I don't see any
justification for this.



To unsubscribe, e-mail:
For additional commands, e-mail:

View raw message