But is there some specific reason why we want to upgrade and be compatible with only >= JDK 1.3? Is there some core class we really need to use in order to make log4j better? If not, then I don't see a compelling reason to self-limit ourselves to >= JDK 1.3. We are a logging framework, it just makes more sense to be as compatible as we can be, imo. It is one of the pluses for log4j vs jdk 1.4 logging.
-Mark > -----Original Message----- > From: Yoav Shapira [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Monday, August 15, 2005 10:41 PM > To: 'Log4J Developers List' > Subject: RE: log4j 1.3 minimum JDK (was Re: [VOTE] Release log4j > 1.2.12rc3) > > 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
