<html>
<head>
<base href="http://bugzilla.slf4j.org/" />
</head>
<body>
<p>
<div>
<b><a class="bz_bug_link
bz_status_NEW "
title="NEW --- - Initialization (getILoggerFactory) is not thread safe"
href="http://bugzilla.slf4j.org/show_bug.cgi?id=176#c30">Comment # 30</a>
on <a class="bz_bug_link
bz_status_NEW "
title="NEW --- - Initialization (getILoggerFactory) is not thread safe"
href="http://bugzilla.slf4j.org/show_bug.cgi?id=176">bug 176</a>
from <span class="vcard"><a class="email" href="mailto:jperkins@redhat.com" title="James R. Perkins <jperkins@redhat.com>"> <span class="fn">James R. Perkins</span></a>
</span></b>
<pre>(In reply to <a href="show_bug.cgi?id=176#c29">comment #29</a>)
<span class="quote">> > FWIW the fix in fixSubstitutedLoggers() method isn't really thread-safe either.
>
> As per current code flow it is thread safe. 'fixSubstitutedLoggers' is
> invoked *after* the INITIALIZATION_STATE is set to
> SUCCESSFUL_INITIALIZATION. So by the time it is invoked TEMP_FACTORY would
> not be in use and no further SubstituteLogegrs would be created.
>
> So the only downside is that only during the initialization phase some log
> calls would be NOOP and log output would be lost. Similar situtation occurs
> in Logback if the Logback config is reset and any log message arrives during
> that phase.
>
> If that also needs to be addressed then we can move just the SimpleLogger to
> slf4j-api module and use that in place of NOOP logger for the initial
> delegate in SubstituteLogger</span >
Sorry for the late reply. Yeah, sorry I missed that.
That said I still don't understand why initialization just can't be
thread-safe. Using SubstitueLoggers and what not just hides the issue. The
bottom line is initialization of a binder is not thread-safe and I see no
reason why it shouldn't be. If it's just made thread-safe there is no need for
all this substitute logger code.</pre>
</div>
</p>
<hr>
<span>You are receiving this mail because:</span>
<ul>
<li>You are the assignee for the bug.</li>
</ul>
</body>
</html>