Hi, I also will be happy when I can replace my custom trace implementation with built-in log4j functionality, but I don�t think it should be done in the 1.2 branch.
The 1.2 branch effectively has a 'functionality freeze' on it which means that I can upgrade individual apps to later versions of the 1.2 release (taking advantage of important bugfixes) without having to worry about code re-work. However, the current cvs head log4j 1.3a7 has too many incompatible changes to make its use in my applications a realistic short-term option. I recently experimented upgrading an application to use 1.3a7 and was disappointed in the amount of work I need to do to re-implement current custom functionality. It's quite possible that my log4j extensions and subclasses are 'wrong' or 'badly designed' but they are currently working quite well for me. IMHO: A 1.2.11 release should go out quickly containing fixes for any critical bugs or compatibility issues. A new 1.4 branch is created from the 1.2 branch which has trace level and perhaps a few other compatible functionality improvements. A stable release could probably be made more quickly from this codebase. The current cvs head becomes the 2.0 development area where the current todo list can be completed as agreed, with a 'timely' release. Regards Andy > -----Original Message----- > From: Endre St�lsvik [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: 11 May 2005 13:58 > To: Log4J Developers List; [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: Interim minor release (1.2.11 or 1.4.0) > > On Tue, 10 May 2005, Mark Womack wrote: > > | I think we should at least do a 1.2.11 release to pick up Andy McBride's > jms > | fix. I think we should consider some other *simple*, needed fixes. As > much > | as it is wanted, I am not sure we should include the TRACE change, > mainly > | because it might be a little unexpected for developers that have already > | implemented their own TRACE extension. I'm open to opinions on this. > > Everybody would be superhappy about trace, even the ones with their own > trace level!! Trust me - or ask your users. > > Do a google on 'log4j trace -stacktrace -"stack trace"'. Or a 'log4j > "trace level"'. > > The amount of noise out there I just astounding, and still log4j haven't > got a trace level. > > | > | However, I don't want to get bogged down doing 1.2.x releases. If we > commit > | to a timely 1.3 release, > > A "timely" 1.3 release?! > > In about a half-year more?! :-) > > Regards, > Endre > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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]
