At 11:07 10.09.2001 -0400, Sam Ruby wrote: >What is the target date for removal of these methods? Hi Sam, Err, 1Q 2003 (no joke). >Gump is a valuable tool for getting the word out... but is now really the >right time to ask people to look at migrating away from Category? Gump is tremendously useful. However, there was no intention to get the "word" out through Gump. See below. >My preference is that these deprecation markings be removed for now, and >re-added at the time when we (collectively) feel is the right time for >log4j customers to evaluate their usage of these messages. The Category class has been replaced by Logger. For rather involved compatibility reasons Logger extends Category and not the other way around. This may be confusing at first. It was not possible to deprecate the Category class entirely but only some key methods such as Category.getInstance and Category.getRoot which have replacements such as Logger.getLogger and Logger.getRootLogger -- other methods in Category are not deprecated because they are used (as is) by Logger and will be moved to Logger when Category is removed. We have a nice migration path from Category to Logger (and Priority to Level). To encourage people to eventually migrate some key methods in Category will have to be marked as deprecated. As I mentioned previously, we cannot deprecate the whole class. Just to be amenable, I am removing the @deprecation flags from Category.getInstance and Category.getRoot. Nevertheless, I think that the @deprecation flags should be reintroduced before log4j 1.2 alpha/beta/whatever is released. I hope the above makes some sense. Regards, Ceki -- Ceki Gülcü - http://qos.ch --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
