On Sep 1, 2005, at 10:10 AM, Jacob Kjome wrote:
Quoting Mark Womack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
Looks like the next version of SLF4J will have Marker's removed
from the
interface (1). Hopefully this will happen in the near future so
that it can be
integrated with Log4j-1.3 before the snapshot release. Should be a
simpler
effort than what it took to produce the patch Curt wrote up to
support a recent
version of SLF4J.
(1) http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=slf4j-dev&m=112523535004386&w=2
If the timing is to get something out next week, I'd suggest building
the CVS HEAD without slf4j support for the snapshot release. I have
not confirmed, but my suspicion is that an slf4j-enabled log4j would
require an slf4j*.jar on the classpath, potentially one from a
specific beta of slf4j, to properly function. The previous alpha did
not have SLF4J support, so not having SLF4J support in the binary
distribution would not be a regression.
BTW, are we ready to say that Log4j-1.3 will support JDK1.3 as a
minimum after
jumping through hoops to get Log4j-1.2.12 compatible with JDK1.1+
(which was a
valiant, and necessary, effort given the promises made for minimum
JDK support
for the 1.2 branch)? User's have their 1.2.12 release for earier
JDK's. If
they aren't willing to upgrade the JDK, what are the chances
they'll be madly
keeping up with versions of other dependencies? Let's be realistic
and make
life easier for developers and users alike.
I'd like to investigate before making a decision to drop running on
JDK 1.2. I'd have no problem with dropping the requirement to build
on JDK 1.2 and coding around known javac compiler bugs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
