amen, they've probably got bigger issues than log4j.
On 16/08/2005, at 3:41 PM, Yoav Shapira wrote:
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]
<[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]
