oh and here's my (obvious) +1 on JDK 1.3
On 16/08/2005, at 12:33 PM, Jacob Kjome wrote:
At 08:31 PM 8/15/2005 -0500, you wrote:
>
>On Aug 15, 2005, at 8:23 PM, Paul Smith wrote:
>
>> This does beg the question that one of the original design goals of
>> log4j 1.3 was that it's minimum requirement would be JDK 1.2. Are
>> we still all in favour of that? I would like to think that JDK 1.3
>> would be an acceptable minimum in this day and age?
>
>I think we need to break that off into another thread to not confuse
>the issue. I could be persuaded. We'd also should specify whether
>we target J2ME or some other subset.
>
+1 for JDK1.3 as a minimum for Log4j-1.3. BTW, does SLF4J run
under JDK1.2? If so, Log4j wouldn't need to really think about
dealing with J2ME. Imagine a jar as large as Log4j being used for
J2ME! I think that's what Log4j Mini was for, but that hasn't been
updated in ages. If J2ME developers were to code to the SLF4J
interfaces, then they could use any implementation. For their code
running in a big appserver, they could use Log4j. For their code
running in J2ME, they could use either the SLF4j simple logger or
some other implementation designed with J2ME in mind. I don't
think J2ME should be much of a concern for Log4j other than making
sure we implement the SLF4J interfaces (hopefully the api will
stabilize at some point in the near future... aren't we glad we
didn't vote Log4j-1.2.10 as a stable release? I am!).
Jake
---------------------------------------------------------------------
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]
