https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48716
--- Comment #4 from Henning Blohm <henning.bl...@gmail.com> 2010-02-10 02:18:54 UTC --- (In reply to comment #3) > > 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. > I didn't say that the call should be removed. I suggested to make it smarter, so that it will not reset the default LogManager. As I am not a developer with JULI or Tomcat for that matter, I do not want to go beyond describing the problem though. > > 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. Well thanks. There is a POST on the mailing list regarding this issue. -- 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
