https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48716
--- Comment #3 from Mark Thomas <ma...@apache.org> 2010-02-10 02:08:45 UTC --- > if JULI would test for its implementation of LogManager, it would work as it > does now by default and would not create further harm in cases where it does > not own the LogManager. Using the standard LogManager causes harm. Again, removing this call provides no opportunity for class loader aware LogManagers (including but not limited to JULI) to do the correct clean-up. > If my web apps use JDK Logging as well (and say do not register handlers and > your own levels or so), what memory leaks would I need to expect (except that > logger names will not be released)? Can elaborate on that please? That is a question for the users mailing list, not Bugzilla. -- Configure bugmail: https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the assignee for the bug. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@tomcat.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@tomcat.apache.org
