+1 I would like to move more into the future and use the more modern classes available in jdk 1.2 (even the simple ones like HashMap instead of Hashtable, etc.). And I agree that it takes too much of our limited effort to provide backward compatibility to jdk 1.1. Most, if not all, of the Jakarta projects have already standardized on jdk 1.2.
I would like to see a survey of jdk 1.1 usage on the log4j user list. As a developer I want to move to jdk 1.2, but as a tool log4j needs to provide solutions to the developers using it. If there is a large group of log4j developers still living in the jdk 1.1 world, then I could consider keeping compatibility. -Mark (sorry for the delay in voting...I was out of town last week) > -----Original Message----- > From: Ceki Gulcu [mailto:ceki@;qos.ch] > Sent: Tuesday, October 15, 2002 12:34 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/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:log4j-dev-unsubscribe@;jakarta.apache.org> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:log4j-dev-help@;jakarta.apache.org> -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:log4j-dev-unsubscribe@;jakarta.apache.org> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:log4j-dev-help@;jakarta.apache.org>
