> On Jan 18, 2024, at 6:15 AM, Gary Gregory <garydgreg...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Using the same API jar for 3.x core is intriguing. I like the idea of > a cleaned-up API jar (no custom Supplier) that can front 2.x and 3.x. > I don’t think that is what Volkan is proposing as it definitely would break compatibility between 2.x versions of the API. Ralph
- Re: [log4j] Making Log4j 2 API "the Log... Ralph Goers
- Re: [log4j] Making Log4j 2 API "the... Ralph Goers
- Re: [log4j] Making Log4j 2 API &quo... Ralph Goers
- Re: [log4j] Making Log4j 2 API &quo... Piotr P. Karwasz
- Re: [log4j] Making Log4j 2 API ... Ralph Goers
- Re: [log4j] Making Log4j 2 API "the... Piotr P. Karwasz
- Re: [log4j] Making Log4j 2 API &quo... Ralph Goers
- Re: [log4j] Making Log4j 2 API ... Piotr P. Karwasz
- Re: [log4j] Making Log4j 2 API ... Ralph Goers
- Re: [log4j] Making Log4j 2 API "the Log4j API&q... Gary Gregory
- Re: [log4j] Making Log4j 2 API "the Log4j A... Ralph Goers
- Re: [log4j] Making Log4j 2 API "the Log4j API" Piotr P. Karwasz
- [RESULT] Making Log4j 2 API "the Log4j API" Volkan Yazıcı
- Re: [RESULT] Making Log4j 2 API "the Log4j API&... Matt Sicker
- Re: [RESULT] Making Log4j 2 API "the Log4j ... Piotr P. Karwasz