Well, it's easy to change a set of import statements in your applications
(org.log4j to org.apache.log4j).... plus if I remember correctly, changing
the package name was a requirement from the Apache folks.
IMHO, I wasn't too sure about changing from Category to Logger... Category
is the more intuitive name (considering how Log4J handles logging)... what
the heck is a "logger" anyways?
I say keep Category as it is.
-Chris
----- Original Message -----
From: "Endre Stĝlsvik" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "LOG4J Developers Mailing List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, August 31, 2001 3:51 PM
Subject: Re: Revised API Proposal
> On Fri, 31 Aug 2001, Ceki Gülcü wrote:
>
> |
> | Hello all,
> |
> | I just wanted to inform you that it is plain impossible to retain
> | backward compatibility with existing log4j (user) code and get away
> | with renaming Category as Logger. I just threw away hours of work to
> | retain backward compatibility.
>
> How can this be? Having both classes, deprecating the Category?
>
> |
> | Category will remain as the backbone class in log4j even if Logger is
> | perhaps a better name. Regards, Ceki
>
> If *you* _choose_ to do this, then your next .jar (read that as "your new
> log4j package") should be a _pure_ plug in replacement for the existing
> .jar, no need to change _anything_ _anywhere_, right?
>
> *You* changed the whole package name from org.log4j to org.apahce.log4j
> without lifting a eyebrow. But doing this Category->Logger move which is
> such a much more intuitive change you wont do.. Hmm..
>
>
> --
> Mvh,
> Endre
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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]
