I do not know what all of the 1.2 dependent bits are, but it should be possible to abstract those components into interfaces and create version specific instances from a factory. So, for the NDC bits, you can abstract the ThreadLocal usage, and use a substitute (perhaps with a low priority bg thread to clean up) on 1.1 and use a ThreadLocal for 1.2.
Seems plausible that this can allow Log4j to be compatible with 1.1, 1.2 + more. Any reason why such an approach would not work? BTW, if it comes down to it, leaving Log4j 1.2 for 1.1 compatibility and Log4j 1.3 for modern vms is cool too. Personally I don't use 1.1 so I couldn't care less about support for it. But I it is one of the features I mention when pitching Log4j vs. JDK 1.4crap to clients. If it is possible to have Log4j 1.3 support both by abstraction, then I would say that would be the way. --jason > -----Original Message----- > From: robert burrell donkin [mailto:robertburrelldonkin@;blueyonder.co.uk] > Sent: Thursday, October 17, 2002 2:53 PM > To: Log4J Developers List > Subject: Re: [VOTE] Requiring JDK 1.2 > > JDK 1.1 support has always been a positive feature of log4j but i can > understand the arguments for switching future releases to JDK1.2. > > as a consideration to users who require JDK1.1 support, it would be nice > to keep the 1.2 release series in cold storage. a link to the latest log4j > 1.2 release on the web site would be good and it would also be nice to > keep the log4j 1.2 alive (somewhere) in cvs so that (if necessary) bugs > could be fixed. > > - robert > > On Tuesday, October 15, 2002, at 10:18 PM, Scott Sanders wrote: > > > 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:Jay.Macarty@;pbsg.com] > >> 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:jim.moore@;veritas.com] > >> 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:ceki@;qos.ch] > >> 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:log4j-dev- > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:log4j-dev- > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > -- > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:log4j-dev- > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:log4j-dev- > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > > > -- > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:log4j-dev- > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:log4j-dev- > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > > -- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:log4j-dev- > [EMAIL PROTECTED]> > For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:log4j-dev- > [EMAIL PROTECTED]> -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:log4j-dev-unsubscribe@;jakarta.apache.org> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:log4j-dev-help@;jakarta.apache.org>
