Return-Path: X-Original-To: apmail-logging-log4j-dev-archive@www.apache.org Delivered-To: apmail-logging-log4j-dev-archive@www.apache.org Received: from mail.apache.org (hermes.apache.org [140.211.11.3]) by minotaur.apache.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 3872E921F for ; Wed, 30 May 2012 07:18:27 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 50574 invoked by uid 500); 30 May 2012 07:18:27 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-logging-log4j-dev-archive@logging.apache.org Received: (qmail 50524 invoked by uid 500); 30 May 2012 07:18:26 -0000 Mailing-List: contact log4j-dev-help@logging.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: List-Help: List-Post: List-Id: "Log4J Developers List" Reply-To: "Log4J Developers List" Delivered-To: mailing list log4j-dev@logging.apache.org Received: (qmail 50505 invoked by uid 99); 30 May 2012 07:18:26 -0000 Received: from nike.apache.org (HELO nike.apache.org) (192.87.106.230) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Wed, 30 May 2012 07:18:26 +0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2000.0 required=5.0 tests=ALL_TRUSTED X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received: from [140.211.11.115] (HELO eir.zones.apache.org) (140.211.11.115) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Wed, 30 May 2012 07:18:24 +0000 Received: by eir.zones.apache.org (Postfix, from userid 80) id 35740520E; Wed, 30 May 2012 07:18:03 +0000 (UTC) From: bugzilla@apache.org To: log4j-dev@logging.apache.org Subject: [Bug 50486] Memoryleak - org.apache.log4j.helpers.ThreadLocalMap Date: Wed, 30 May 2012 07:18:01 +0000 X-Bugzilla-Reason: AssignedTo X-Bugzilla-Type: changed X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None X-Bugzilla-Product: Log4j X-Bugzilla-Component: Other X-Bugzilla-Keywords: X-Bugzilla-Severity: major X-Bugzilla-Who: marcel@frightanic.com X-Bugzilla-Status: REOPENED X-Bugzilla-Priority: P2 X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: log4j-dev@logging.apache.org X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: --- X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Bugzilla-URL: https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/ Auto-Submitted: auto-generated MIME-Version: 1.0 https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50486 --- Comment #43 from marcel@frightanic.com --- In reply to comment #42) > Yes, looks good to me. I just mentioned it again because calling clean() in > Servlet#destroy() doesn't make sense in my opinion. In fact, clients > shouldn't have to call clean() at all if they properly call remove() for > each key they add. Sorry, make that clear() instead of clean(). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: log4j-dev-unsubscribe@logging.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: log4j-dev-help@logging.apache.org