On Sat, 2006-01-21 at 16:41 +0000, robert burrell donkin wrote: > On Fri, 2006-01-20 at 14:02 +1300, Simon Kitching wrote: > > > IMO the mistake was in creating API classes (Log and LogFactory) which > could not be used independently. the static methods should delegate to a > single LogFactory implementation. any tricks with classloaders should > have been delegated to LogFactoryImpl. > > > However it looks > > ok to me. Here's the contents from release 1.0.3: > > [snip] > > > > > The only differences I can see between this and the proposed "minimal" > > are: > > * add WeakHashtable > > * remove Jdk14Logger > > > > Can't we just make those changes to the api jar? > > +1 > > good point: the API jar started out with a lot less in.
Can we get away with removing jdk14Logger from this jar? I think we can; people who really want the jdk14logger can move to the full jarfile. That's not really a "backwards compatibility" issue, because they are already willing to overwrite a jarfile with a new one if they are upgrading to 1.1. Comments? Regards, Simon --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
