Are there other changes to HEAD that should have been deprecation warnings in 1.2.8 other than Category? The only thing I can recall off the top of my head is LocationInfo. I understand Category could be considered a special case, and I'll vote +1 - under the assumption that changes to public methods/classes that were removed between 1.2.8 and HEAD can be marked deprecated as well - at least in org.apache.log4j and org.apache.log4j.spi. For consistency sake, I'd like us to be more diligent in only changing public methods & classes that were marked deprecated in a previous release.
-----Original Message-----
From: Ceki GÃlcà [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Fri 10/29/2004 2:26 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc:
Subject: [POLL] a 1.2.9 release?
Hi all,
For reasons explained at http://www.qos.ch/logging/replacingCategory.html,
in log4j version 1.2.x, the Category class was not tagged with the
@deprecated javadoc tag in the source code. This voluntary omission
led to a situation where users could still refer to the Category class
without deprecation warnings being generated by the java
compiler. Consequently, some users unfortunately still continue to
refer to the Category class.
We have marked in red and in bold that users should drop references to
the Category class and use Logger instead. However, us shouting about
this important point does not tell the java compiler to enforce
it. Since we cannot mark the Category class as @deprecated in the
javadocs, the only compiler-enforced way of pushing users to migrate
to the Logger class is to tag those methods in the Category class that
have Category as their return value in their signature. These methods
are:
static public Category getRoot();
static public Category getInstance(String name);
static public Category getInstance(Class clazz);
Unfortunately, log4j versions up to and including 1.2.8 did not mark
these methods as deprecated. As such, I would like to release a new
version in the 1.2 series, namely 1.2.9, which will mark these methods
as deprecated. Would you approve such a release?
Assuming log4j version 1.2.9 is approved, then we can assume that
users of 1.2.9 will only refer to the Logger class. If that is the
case, their code will compile and run without change with log4j 1.3
even if the Category class is removed.
--
Ceki GÃlcÃ
For log4j documentation consider "The complete log4j manual"
http://www.qos.ch/shop/products/eclm/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
<<winmail.dat>>
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
