At 08:51 31.08.2001 +0200, Endre Stĝlsvik wrote:
>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?
It's not that easy. I find it quite difficult at least.
>|
>| 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?
That's the idea, yes.
>*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..
Is this a provocation? Wishing you a good weekend, Ceki
--
Ceki Gülcü - http://qos.ch
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
