Chris,
I am copying log4j-dev because this is of wider interest. I am very happy to see your
contribution which I am sure is the first in long series.
Since the changes you have made are pervasive, it makes it impossible for check if
log4j compiles under JDK 1.1. The other JDK 1.2+ dependencies are isolated in few
classes such that one can skip them when compiling under JDK 1.1. This can no longer
be done with your changes.
It seems to me that at this point we are at crossroads. From this point on, we either
abandon JDK 1.1 compatibility without ever looking back or we stick to JDK 1.1
compatibility. In the latter case your changes do not seem appropriate.
The third option is to develop two log4js, one having JDK 1.1 compatibility and the
other JDK 1.2 and above. The former could be a "log4j-tiny" that some users seem to
want.
It might be that this JDK 1.1 is moot and no one actually uses it. We should consult
with our user base. Your ideas/suggestion are welcome. Ceki
ps: BTW, as a committer, you should be subscribed to the [EMAIL PROTECTED]
mailing list.
At 01:10 20.06.2001 -0700, you wrote:
>Ceki,
>
>I committed the changes for the classloader VersionHelper, and I changed the code to
>use the System.getProperty("java.version") rather than the
>Class.forName("java.util.List") hack.
>
>I tested the code both on Microsoft J++ and JDK 1.3.
>
>-Chris
>
>P.S. The only thing I *didn't* test was *building* the code under JDK 1.1. Is that a
>requirement? Unless we make changes to the build scripts I'm pretty sure JDK 1.1
>compilers will barf on the JDK 1.2 specific code in VersionHelper20.java.
--
Ceki Gülcü
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
