With all the compatibility issues with Android Java, it's no wonder Oracle tried to sue them over it...
On 6 July 2017 at 04:51, Gary Gregory <[email protected]> wrote: > Here is another Java 9 headache WRT Android: > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LOG4J2-1921? > focusedCommentId=16076259&page=com.atlassian.jira. > plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel#comment-16076259 > > > Gary > > On Wed, Jul 5, 2017 at 2:28 PM, Matt Sicker <[email protected]> wrote: > > > So 11.0 would have the old name, and 12.0 would have the new name? That > > would be fine with me. That also gives us an opportunity to look into > > Scalameta for simpler macro portability going forward considering I keep > > seeing deprecation warnings all over the place in the existing macro API. > > > > On 5 July 2017 at 15:15, Mikael Ståldal <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > But this long package name is already out released for Scala 2.10 and > > > 2.11. I suggest we release for 2.12 with the same package name, and > then > > > maybe change it in the next release. > > > > > > > > > > > > On 2017-07-05 22:10, Matt Sicker wrote: > > > > > >> I've been using the 2.12 snapshot for now, but I'd rather get a > released > > >> solution. I have one thought that our package name in the Scala API is > > too > > >> long as most Scala libraries I've used do not use the reverse DNS > > package > > >> naming scheme. We may be better off renaming it to just log4j as the > > root > > >> package name there. > > >> > > >> On 5 July 2017 at 14:15, Mikael Ståldal <[email protected]> wrote: > > >> > > >> There are a couple of almost finished PRs on GitHub which would be > nice > > to > > >>> include. I'll have a look at LOG4J2-1923 (PR #81) in the comming > days. > > >>> > > >>> It would be good to do something about LOG4J2-1921 (Android > support). I > > >>> guess it boils down to what level of support for Android we want. Is > it > > >>> enough that log4j-api works on Android, or do we want log4j-core to > > work > > >>> as > > >>> well? > > >>> > > >>> Then I would really want to have Scala 2.12 support out. > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> On 2017-07-05 17:28, Matt Sicker wrote: > > >>> > > >>> I'd be alright with that. We'll just have to push back some goals to > > >>>> 2.10. > > >>>> I have an outstanding properties change I want to merge, but I don't > > >>>> have > > >>>> time at the moment to go through and make all the documentation > > updates > > >>>> it > > >>>> requires, so I can push that for 2.10. Same goes for the Scala repo > > >>>> since > > >>>> I > > >>>> want to take a look at the API in more detail before we make a new > > major > > >>>> release of it. > > >>>> > > >>>> On 4 July 2017 at 18:12, Ralph Goers <[email protected]> > > >>>> wrote: > > >>>> > > >>>> It should be possible. We need to take a hard look at the bugs that > > >>>> have > > >>>> > > >>>>> been reported. Some seem pretty important. > > >>>>> > > >>>>> Ralph > > >>>>> > > >>>>> On Jul 4, 2017, at 2:00 PM, Gary Gregory <[email protected]> > > >>>>> wrote: > > >>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> Hi All, > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> I would live to see our 2.9 at the end of July at the latest. Big > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> deadline > > >>>>> > > >>>>> for me. Is that a possibility? > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> Gary > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>> > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > > > -- > > Matt Sicker <[email protected]> > > > -- Matt Sicker <[email protected]>
