On Sat, 2005-11-12 at 08:05 +1300, Simon Kitching wrote: > On Thu, 2005-11-10 at 22:40 +0000, robert burrell donkin wrote: > > On Thu, 2005-11-10 at 21:04 +1300, Simon Kitching wrote: > > > > <snip> > > > > > > Can a new release of CL rule out all the classloading problems > > > > people had before? > > > > > > > > > What's currently in SVN head will probably fix 90% of the problems, and > > > is about 99% backwards compatible. I would love to see it released, so > > > that the debate could then move on to a "JCL 2.0" which I think is quite > > > likely to take the alternative approach described above. Oh for a few > > > more hours in the day! > > > > what work's required for a release (above the actual code cutting)? > > * Remove the ServletCleanupContextListener (this might not be exactly > the right class name). It's obviously too controversial. Maybe the code > could be put in the documentation somewhere, or on the wiki.
i'm +1 for the class to be distributed. my main concern was about the best way to do this sympathetically. IMHO the real decisions needed are: 1 our jar distribution strategy (in particular, whether we ship the optional jar or not) 2 how we give downstream packagers and users a fair view of the actual JCL dependencies i'll move these two important and related issues to a separate thread. > * Decide whether to merge the weak-hash-map stuff into the main trunk or > leave it in an "optional" jar. If we merge it, we can do away with the > optional jar completely which is good. However it does mean that if > there is a bug in it people can't disable it. If bundled in the main jar > there might need to be a little extra code to just ignore it when it > throws an exception on load for java < 1.3. this is a tough call :-/ but probably want to add that code in any case i'm learning towards distributing a more limited number of more easily understood standard jars (more on this in the other thread). probably need to work through the shape of the distribution first. > * Sort out whether we split Log4JLogger into two classes or not. yep needs sorting :-/ opinions? > * Verify that TRACE support works for log4j's latest releases. +1 volunteers? > * Consider Joerg Schaible/Joerg Hohwiller's "getChildLogger" proposal. > I'm tempted not to include this, though. Getting a release out is > probably the highest priority. IMHO i need to be certain that everything's exactly right before i'm willing to commit it. i was trying to work through the issues and making sure i understood them but this went a bit quiet. either of the two Joerg's around to advocate it's inclusion? - robert --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
