+1
Environments in which a JDK as old as 1.1 is required should also be fine with a back-level version of log4j. - Paul Paul Glezen Consulting IT Specialist IBM Software Services for WebSphere 818 539 3321 Jacob Kjome <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> on 10/15/2002 04:28:11 PM Please respond to "Log4J Developers List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Log4J Developers List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> cc: Subject: Re: [VOTE] Requiring JDK 1.2 +1 Jake At 09:34 PM 10/15/2002 +0200, you wrote: >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/msg30906.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]>
