Hello all, > 1) The MarkingLogger interface was not used by anyone. Thus, its > dissapperance will affect end-users nor bindings of the SLF4J API, > e.g. NLOG4J or x4juli. It is a "to be done" for x4juli. > > 2) Given their signatures, the newly *added* methods to the Logger > interface do not affect existing clients of that interface. However, > implementations of the Logger interface need to implement the new > methods. This has been done for all bindings shipping with SLF4J as > well as NLOG4J. By the way, the change could be applied on 5 different > implementations (nop, simple, jdk14, log4j, nlog4j) took about 60 > seconds per binding. > > In principle, it should be easy to apply on x4juli as well. However, > good developers such as Boris do not like changes pushed down their > throats and I apologize if the change was not sufficiently > explained. If there is still interest, I can provide an explanation > in a separate message. Move forward! I will do the changes in x4juli with the next release candidate of SLF4J. I did worry about the version numbering (changes in the RC phase) but I did not worry about the change itself, neither for slf4j nor x4juli.
I am sorry not having published anything in the last weeks. I am busy at work (currently _really_ fulltime) plus my studies at the German VAWi. > Subject to Boris' consent, I hope to release 1.0RC6 in the next few > days. Releasing a new version is good - as it means to have a stable interface for the future. Most important users should notice that they cannot mix implementations (x4juli 0.6 with the SLF4J > 1.0RC6). Regards Boris _______________________________________________ dev mailing list dev@slf4j.org http://slf4j.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
