Quoting Ceki Gülcü <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > As far as log4j 1.2.x is concerned, I believe that JDK 1.2 > compatibility was real. I can attest that for all log4j versions prior > to 1.2.9, the log4j core was verified to compile under JDK 1.2. The > same holds true for log4j 1.3beta. >
Then we should verify that and figure out what changed to make it so annoyingly difficult to build source later than 1.2.9. BTW, what JDK have the releases been made under? I'd hasten to bet not JDK1.2 (without taking the time to verify). It's been relatively recently that we set target and source attributes in the build. Yes, the source may have been compatible with JDK1.2, but have the official releases actually been compatible? Something to test, I guess. In any case, my main point is that if it is going to be so difficult to provide releases compatible with JDK1.2, maybe Log4j-1.3 is the time to break to JDK1.3. It's not just a developer's whim or convenience, but the ability to assure users the JDK that is supported. Whether Log4j-1.2.xx compile under JDK1.2 after extraordinary wrangling to get it to work is beside the point. If our official releases don't work under JDK1.2 (how could they if they were compiled in a later JDK and didn't provide source and target attributes?) and it is too difficult to figure out how to get the build to work under JDK1.2 for the average user trying to build it for JDK1.2, then it's very difficult for us to claim JDK1.2 support. Maybe we have it, but that's kind of a guess rather than a 100% assured fact. Stating JDK1.3 support for Log4j-1.3 makes our lives easier and assures users because we can say with 100% certainty that it will work. And then the sky's the limit for JDK support in 2.0, of course. Jake > At 08:26 PM 8/16/2005, you wrote: > >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 > > -- > Ceki Gülcü > > The complete log4j manual: http://www.qos.ch/log4j/ > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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]
