Hola, +1 on JDK 1.3. It's more than five years old now. If someone hasn't updated their JVM in 5 years, they're not going to update log4j from 1.2...
Yoav Shapira System Design and Management Fellow MIT Sloan School of Management Cambridge, MA USA [EMAIL PROTECTED] / www.yoavshapira.com > -----Original Message----- > From: Curt Arnold [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Monday, August 15, 2005 9:32 PM > To: Log4J Developers List > Subject: log4j 1.3 minimum JDK (was Re: [VOTE] Release log4j 1.2.12rc3) > > > 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. > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
BEGIN:VCARD VERSION:2.1 N:Shapira;Yoav FN:[EMAIL PROTECTED] ORG:MIT Sloan School of Management TITLE:System Design and Management Fellow URL;WORK:http://www.yoavshapira.com EMAIL;PREF;INTERNET:[EMAIL PROTECTED] REV:20050801T193645Z END:VCARD
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
