You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to log4cxx-dev@logging.apache.org by Curt Arnold <ca...@apache.org> on 2008/03/21 06:05:42 UTC

0.10.0 RC3 on Monday

There are much better things to do over the next 3 days than to review  
a release candidate.  I hope to prepare and post one on Monday.


Re: 0.10.0 RC3 on Monday

Posted by Bernard Stumpf <be...@verizon.net>.
Curt,

  You may be glad to know that today, after doing a SVN update of my 
working copy, a subsequent release build succeeded and all the unit 
tests completed successfully, including telnetappendertestcase, with no 
hangs.

uname -srvmpio
Linux 2.6.23.14-64.fc7 #1 SMP Sun Jan 20 23:54:08 EST 2008 i686 i686 
i386 GNU/Linux

thanks,
-Bernie Stumpf


Curt Arnold wrote at 10:02:

>
> On Mar 26, 2008, at 5:44 AM, Moshe Matitya wrote:
>
>> On Friday, March 21, 2008 7:06 AM, Curt Arnold wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> There are much better things to do over the next 3 days than
>>> to review a release candidate.  I hope to prepare and post
>>> one on Monday.
>>
>>
>> Is there a new ETA for this?
>>
>> Moshe
>
>
>
> At the moment, I'm in a quandary with ServerSocket.  If you noticed, 
> I  just suppressed a TelnetAppender test that was written in the last  
> week or so.  The test is valid, it is just that the implementation of  
> ServerSocket behaves differently on different platforms and on some  
> platforms it will deadlock on close.
>
> On Mac OS/X, a call to accept() returns an error if the listening  
> socket is closed on a different thread.  On Linux (Ubuntu 6.06  
> specifically), a call to accept() does not return but continues to  
> wait does not return and the specified timeout seems to have no  
> affect.  This results in the call to Thread::join on the  
> TelnetAppender::close to never return.
>
> If blocking with timeout is not portable, then the accept logic 
> should  be rewritten using non-blocking with polling (which hopefully 
> is  portable).  Unfortunately, I'm already fully committed today and 
> can  not work on the issue.
>

Re: 0.10.0 RC3 on Monday

Posted by Curt Arnold <ca...@apache.org>.
On Mar 26, 2008, at 5:44 AM, Moshe Matitya wrote:

> On Friday, March 21, 2008 7:06 AM, Curt Arnold wrote:
>>
>> There are much better things to do over the next 3 days than
>> to review a release candidate.  I hope to prepare and post
>> one on Monday.
>
> Is there a new ETA for this?
>
> Moshe


At the moment, I'm in a quandary with ServerSocket.  If you noticed, I  
just suppressed a TelnetAppender test that was written in the last  
week or so.  The test is valid, it is just that the implementation of  
ServerSocket behaves differently on different platforms and on some  
platforms it will deadlock on close.

On Mac OS/X, a call to accept() returns an error if the listening  
socket is closed on a different thread.  On Linux (Ubuntu 6.06  
specifically), a call to accept() does not return but continues to  
wait does not return and the specified timeout seems to have no  
affect.  This results in the call to Thread::join on the  
TelnetAppender::close to never return.

If blocking with timeout is not portable, then the accept logic should  
be rewritten using non-blocking with polling (which hopefully is  
portable).  Unfortunately, I'm already fully committed today and can  
not work on the issue.

RE: 0.10.0 RC3 on Monday

Posted by Moshe Matitya <Mo...@Kayote.com>.
On Friday, March 21, 2008 7:06 AM, Curt Arnold wrote:
> 
> There are much better things to do over the next 3 days than 
> to review a release candidate.  I hope to prepare and post 
> one on Monday.

Is there a new ETA for this?

Moshe