logging-log4j-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "James Stauffer" <stauffer.ja...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: log4j as good as jack daniels??
Date Thu, 05 Jul 2007 14:08:58 GMT
>  and if you go the latter route,  do you have to synchronize the logger's
> methods  - i would think you would have to

I have used the "all threads share one instance" method without
synchronizing access and it works great.  I believe log4j is writen to
to handle all threads sharing one logger instance but I don't know if
anyone has compared the performance.

On 7/4/07, Mike Wilkinson <wilkystorm@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hey Jim,
>
> Sorry I am drinkin and researchin so I am a liitle type happy
>
> I sent the same message to Edwin too,
>
>  I am mike nice to meet you.
>
>  hey i was wondering did you ever figure out which was better for using
> log4j in multi-threaded apps - one instance per thread vs. all threads share
> one instance??
>
>  and if you go the latter route,  do you have to synchronize the logger's
> methods  - i would think you would have to
>
>  any advice you can provide is greatly appreciated.
>
>  Cheers,
>
>  Mike Wilkinson
>
>
>  p.s. fresh, cold wheat beer is very good with just a drop of good orange
> juice in the bottom of the mug - mmm
>


-- 
James Stauffer        http://www.geocities.com/stauffer_james/
Are you good? Take the test at http://www.livingwaters.com/good/

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: log4j-user-unsubscribe@logging.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: log4j-user-help@logging.apache.org


Mime
View raw message