I’d be alright with that as well. 3.0 is a good place for modularization and API cleanup.
On Tue, Jul 30, 2019 at 18:55, Remko Popma <[email protected]> wrote: > No objections from me. > Remko > > > > > On Jul 31, 2019, at 8:48, Ralph Goers <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > I implemented a logging builder pattern in the Log4j API on the master > branch. I was able to do that in a backward compatible manner by using Java > 8 default methods. Although I could implement those default methods in > AbstractLogger in the release-2.x branch, the Logger interface would no > longer be backward compatible. In doing some investigation I found > https://www.baeldung.com/java-in-2018 < > https://www.baeldung.com/java-in-2018> which showed Java 7 usage to be > down to about 5%. > > > > I still don’t see us releasing 3.0 very soon because more modularization > work is required. So I am now wondering if we should just make the minimum > requirement for new Log4j 2 2.x releases to be Java 8. > > > > Thoughts? > > > > Ralph > -- Matt Sicker <[email protected]>
