+1 What is the current plan for the 1.3 release?
-Mark -----Original Message----- From: Jacob Kjome [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, November 01, 2004 9:35 AM To: Log4J Developers List Subject: RE: [POLL] a 1.2.9 release? +1 if ditto what Yoav said. Jake Quoting "Shapira, Yoav" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > Hi, > +1 to 1.2.9 with: > - Deprecated Category > - Deprecated Priority > - enum keyword replacement to allow J2SE 5.0 compilation > > I understand and still +1 if only the first two can be done, but the 3rd one > is good as well. -1 on adding other new things, such as some of the recently > proposed appenders, to 1.2.9. > > Yoav Shapira http://www.yoavshapira.com > > > >-----Original Message----- > >From: Ceki Gülcü [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > >Sent: Friday, October 29, 2004 5:27 PM > >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >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 Gülcü > > > > 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] > > > > > This e-mail, including any attachments, is a confidential business > communication, and may contain information that is confidential, proprietary > and/or privileged. This e-mail is intended only for the individual(s) to > whom it is addressed, and may not be saved, copied, printed, disclosed or > used by anyone else. If you are not the(an) intended recipient, please > immediately delete this e-mail from your computer system and notify the > sender. Thank you. > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
