logging-log4net-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Ron Grabowski <rongrabow...@yahoo.com>
Subject Re: Name for MutexLock?
Date Tue, 13 Sep 2011 22:36:44 GMT
I don't have any hard numbers but the last time I played around with MinimalLock it was very
very slow. I view InterProcessLock as an intermediary between exclusive and minimal locking.

From: Dominik Psenner <dpsenner@gmail.com>
To: 'Log4NET Dev' <log4net-dev@logging.apache.org>
Sent: Tuesday, September 13, 2011 8:37 AM
Subject: RE: Name for MutexLock?

>LOG4NET-164 introduced a new locking strategy for FileAppender which
>technically uses a System.Threading.Mutex with a name built from the log
>file's name.  This should allow separate processes to share a log file
>without repeatedly opening and closing it.
>The main remaining issue is its name (apart from docs which will follow
>once the name is settled).  Right now it is called MutexLock but that
>may not convey to users what this actually does - they'd need to know
>what a Mutex is in the first place.
>I'm notoriously bad at names so I'm asking here now.  Names suggested in
>the JIRA ticket are "InterProcessLock", "SystemWideLock" and

Are we talking about the variable name? In that case I would prefer a name
that makes it obvious what it is behind:



Did you actually do performance tests too? A mutex is rather expensive and
it should be avoided to acquire/release it multiple times unless really

View raw message