I am also not a committer, but I am a prolific user. I am +1, as log4j < 1.3 is full
of features and stable.
Thanks Ceki and crew,
Scott
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Macarty, Jay {PBSG} [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Tuesday, October 15, 2002 1:37 PM
> To: 'Log4J Developers List'
> Subject: RE: [VOTE] Requiring JDK 1.2
>
>
> I agree as well.
>
> +1
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jim Moore [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Tuesday, October 15, 2002 3:30 PM
> To: 'Log4J Developers List'
> Subject: RE: [VOTE] Requiring JDK 1.2
>
>
> Starting with log4j 1.3 I think the timing would be
> appropriate to drop JDK
> 1.1 support.
>
> +1
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ceki Gülcü [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Tuesday, October 15, 2002 3:34 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: [VOTE] Requiring JDK 1.2
>
>
> Hello all,
>
> Given the hoops we have to jump through in order to support
> JDK 1.1 and
> given the limiteed the resources at our disposal, I propose
> to drop support
> for JDK 1.1 and require JDK 1.2 as of log4j version 1.3. This
> will result in
> cleaner code and some problems faced by our users will automagically
> disappear. For example, the NDC.remove method is required
> only because JDK
> 1.1 does not support ThreadLocal variables. NDC.remove can be a pita:
>
http://www.mail-archive.com/jboss-development%40lists.sourceforge.net/msg309
06.html
Anyway, here is my +1 for requiring JDK 1.2 as of log4j version 1.3.
--
Ceki
TCP implementations will follow a general principle of robustness: be
conservative in what you do, be liberal in what you accept from others. --
Jon Postel, RFC 793
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
