At 13:33 11.06.2002 +0100, Paul Duffin wrote: >Ceki Gülcü wrote: > > > > At 12:00 11.06.2002 +0100, you wrote: > > >Ceki Gülcü wrote: > > > > > > > > Sigh. > > > > > > > > > >And what exactly do you mean by that !?! > > > > This is from your initial post: > > > > Modify all previous and current versions of log4j to support that > > API. This may take a little while but it will allow new code and > > old code to coexist. > > > > I sigh because in log4j 1.2 already ensures backward > > compatibility. Moreover, this was done at the cost of not little but > > a lot of work. > > > >While 1.2 may be backwardly compatible with 1.1 (as far as the API that >I need is concerned) whatever release you remove Category in will >immediately break backward compatability.
The renaming was done essentially because that is how JSR47 names things. It is bene-ficial to adopt JSR47 terminology because all those who know java.util.logging will quickly feel equally at home with log4j. >While we are on the subject why was Category deprecated and replaced >with Logger. I looked in the FAQ a while ago but could not find it >and a previous question went unanswered but maybe if you have the time >you could enlighten me. Not exactly, when the Category class is removed in a few years time, the vast majority of products will be using only the Logger class. -- Ceki -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
