On Sun, 2006-01-22 at 10:36 +1300, Simon Kitching wrote: > 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?
should be ok but i'd feel better if we tested it. anyone fancy volunteering to test the behaviour of JCL in this new configuration? - robert --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
