I agree that we should probably move to Java 2 only in the future, but I
could make two changes to my submission that would let us continue running
under Java 1:
Change 1- Change the following code in VersionHelper to dynamically load the
VersionHelper20 class. This means that VersionHelper wouldn't have a direct
dependency on VersionHelper20 (so the compiler won't try and automatically
compile it).
Change 2 - Change the ANT build script to ignore VersionHelper20, and then
add a conditional compile step if the java.version property is 1.2 or
greater.
It's ugly, but we could still keep Java 1 compatibility.
Let me know, and I'll make the change if needed.
-Chris
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ceki Gülcü" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "LOG4J Developers Mailing List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, June 20, 2001 5:01 AM
Subject: Re: Re: Made my first commit
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]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
