[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LOG4J2-2041?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=16160855#comment-16160855
]
William Ferguson commented on LOG4J2-2041:
------------------------------------------
I never suggested the 2 classes be removed.
I suggested that they be compiled to class version 52 instead of 53.
> 2.9.0 contains classes built to class version 53
> ------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: LOG4J2-2041
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LOG4J2-2041
> Project: Log4j 2
> Issue Type: Bug
> Affects Versions: 2.9.0
> Reporter: William Ferguson
>
> 2.9.0 is built to class version 53, presumably because it includes attempts
> at support for JDK9.
> But JDK has not been released yet, so build tools that introspect class files
> (such as Proguard) do not yet support consuming version 53 classes.
> Can I suggest that an appropriate forward path is to build using and against
> JDK9 but to build to class version 52 until some time after JDK9 has been
> released so as to not break existing tooling.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.4.14#64029)
