On Mon, Feb 03, 2003 at 11:12:28AM -0800, Craig R. McClanahan wrote: > > That's not the intent -- what I'd like to have, though, is a proposed > patch that you've shown accomplishes that goal. The original bug report > only talked about changing which class to check for in order to gauge JDK > 1.4 presence or not. >
I do not have the knowledge at this time to understand the low-level issues as to exactly *why* Lumberjack and Commons-logging aren't working together. When I have the time to resarch the issue I will let you know and either provide the details of what I can find or provide you with the code to resolve the issue. Regards... -- David Orriss Jr. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
