At 01:11 20.06.2001 +0000, you wrote:
>IMHO, the best option is to have an 'older' (eg 1.04) version of log4j available for
>download for all who prefer to use the JDK 1.1 and drop support for JDK 1.1 in the
>newer releases (log4j 1.1 and beyond).
There is mounting evidence that it is a step that needs to be taken. For example, JMX
requries JDK 1.2. Dropping support for JDK 1.2 is a Rubicon.
It is also true that those wishing to use JDK 1.1 can do so by using log4j version
1.1.3. What do others think?
>Perhaps we should cast a vote at the [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailinglist and on
>our website?
We can certainly do that. Regards, Ceki
>Mathias
>
>------------------------
> "LOG4J Developers Mailing List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>------------------------
>
>>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]
>>
>
>
>
>---------------------------------------------------------------------
>To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
Ceki Gülcü
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
