We can make it so that log4j is compatible with 1.2 and happy when it runs. Just compile using jdk 1.2 instead of jdk 1.3 or 1.4. I think the messages we are seeing are related to compiling the release lib with 1.4 instead of 1.2 (or 1.1 in the case of 1.2.12). And they are non-fatal warnings, not errors. I have to imagine that compiling with jdk 1.2 (or 1.1) will generate compatible byte code for that jdk. And it appears that Ant will support compiling with different jdk's while itself runs in jdk 1.4. I don't know if there is any performance penalty for running jdk 1.2 byte code in 1.3/1.4.
Assuming the above, the question still remains. Is there a compelling reason to dump jdk 1.2 compatibility besides easing the building and testing requirements? -Mark > -----Original Message----- > From: Jacob Kjome [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Tuesday, August 16, 2005 11:26 AM > To: Log4J Developers List; [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: log4j 1.3 minimum JDK (was Re: [VOTE] Release log4j > 1.2.12rc3) > > Quoting Mark Womack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > 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. > > > > We still don't know if our current 1.2.xx releases are truly compatible > with > JDK1.2 according to Curt's investigations, but we can all compile and test > under JDK1.3 quite easily. The idea is nice, but even our promise of > backward > compatiblity for the 1.2 branch up to now is turning out to be a possible > farce. Suggested workarounds by Curt suggest is is not easy to provide > this > support. Like others have said, if people haven't upgraded the JVM from > 1.2.xx, they certainly aren't of the mind to upgrade Log4j or anything > else. > JDK1.5 is out and 1.6 is in development. It's time to put JDK1.2 to rest > which > will allow us to make promises we can stand by! > > > Jake > > > > -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] > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
