New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Support configuring FileAppender#bufferSize. #1951

Merged
merged 1 commit into from Mar 7, 2017

Conversation

Projects
None yet
4 participants
@pkwarren
Contributor

pkwarren commented Mar 7, 2017

Update FileAppenderFactory to support configuration of the
FileAppender#bufferSize setting. Introduced in logback 1.1.10, this
setting is reported to reduce thread contention in logging performance
tests.

Philip K. Warren
Support configuring FileAppender#bufferSize.
Update FileAppenderFactory to support configuration of the
FileAppender#bufferSize setting. Introduced in logback 1.1.10, this
setting is reported to reduce thread contention in logging performance
tests.

@jplock jplock added this to the 1.2.0 milestone Mar 7, 2017

@jplock jplock added the improvement label Mar 7, 2017

@coveralls

This comment has been minimized.

coveralls commented Mar 7, 2017

Coverage Status

Coverage increased (+0.01%) to 84.71% when pulling 7007f30 on pkwarren:fileappender_buffer_size into 57bc816 on dropwizard:master.

@arteam arteam merged commit 6f71043 into dropwizard:master Mar 7, 2017

@pkwarren pkwarren deleted the pkwarren:fileappender_buffer_size branch Mar 7, 2017

@arteam

This comment has been minimized.

Member

arteam commented Mar 7, 2017

Looks good to me, thank you for the contribution!

nickbabcock added a commit that referenced this pull request Mar 8, 2017

reneploetz added a commit to reneploetz/dropwizard that referenced this pull request Mar 10, 2017

@pkwarren

This comment has been minimized.

Contributor

pkwarren commented Mar 22, 2017

@arteam - Did this make the 1.1.0 release? I didn't notice it in the release notes.

@arteam

This comment has been minimized.

Member

arteam commented Mar 23, 2017

It was merged to master (1.2), but not to the 1.1 branch. I will cherry-pick it to the 1.1 branch, because this looks like a harmless change, but it can very useful for operations.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment