Hello All: In the XP spirit of "release early, release often", what about releasing 1.3 and saving this large scale change for a 1.4?
Gary -----Original Message----- From: Jacob Kjome [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, January 14, 2005 11:46 AM To: Log4J Developers List Subject: Re: [POLL] Splitting log4j.jar by dependency Quoting Ceki Gülcü <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > At 05:41 PM 1/14/2005, Jacob Kjome wrote: > > >I'm speaking of "endorsed" in a slightly different sense. Not physically > >endorsed as having been added to the endorsed classloader repository. The > >mere > >fact that they are meant to be core Java or J2EE libraries qualifies them, > in > >my interpretation, as "endorsed". The reason I say this is that the server > >requires access to these libraries and with classloader hierarchies, putting > >something like mail.jar in WEB-INF/lib can cause all sorts of classloader > >headaches, especially with child-first classloading behavior such as Tomcat > >implements. > > Tomcat does NOT ship with mail.jar. That is an easily verifiable > fact. I never claimed it did and thought I explained what I meant by "endorsed". I guess I didn't explain very well. [cut] > > Would you at least agree that splitting log4j.jar by dependency will > not create any new problems but may solve problems that exist already? Sure, if you feel strongly about it. It isn't forced on anyone, so whatever. Jake > > -- > Ceki Gülcü > --------------------------------------------------------------------- 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]
