Paul Smith wrote:
On 29/11/2005, at 7:47 AM, Elias Ross wrote:
On Mon, 2005-11-28 at 14:07 -0600, Jess Holle wrote:
What is breaking so much source code and many existing binaries really
buying?
In my opinion, removing "Category" would be just like Sun deciding to
remove "java.util.Emumeration" or some other classes now marked as
"deprecated."
True. I'm personally a bit unclear as to whether we are trying to
maintain binary compatibility with log4j 1.2.x. I hope so.
It would really seem that there has been no attempt along these lines to
date. logj4 1.3 is currently only an alpha so issues are to be expected
at this point, *but* I believe binary compatibility and removal of
Category and Priority are mutually exclusive. [I'd be happy to be
proven wrong on this.] The best one could seemingly achieve is
introduction of a log4j 1.2.xx release which binaries compiled agianst
will also work with log4j 1.3. If binaries built against any currently
existing 1.2.x release are to be supported then we have to keep Category
and Priority around as I see it.
I think we as a dev team should highlight that this is a primary goal
of the 1.3 release or explicitly mention that we're not.
If this is not to be a goal, then *please* place all the classes under
other package names and clearly document this situation.
I do not believe such a fragmentation of the log4j ecosystem is
justified or productive, however.
If we are going to aim for compatibility then Jess' reports are
disturbing (putting the tone of the email aside, the content is
sounding valid at first glance).
I apologize for the tone.
I have spent a great deal of time converting a great deal of legacy
logging code and infrastructure to (directly, no JCL) use log4j and
creating my own JMX MBeans to manage all manage and monitor log4j (due
to a number of deeply rooted issues I encountered in log4j's own MBeans).
After all of this, I am now confronted with deadlocks vs. the 1.3 issues
-- a rock-and-a-hard-place which is more than a bit distressing!
Please bear in mind that we're in Alpha stage at the moment, there's
still a lot of change probably left to go. I would consider what we
have published so far for 1.3 as a "work in progress, comments
please" type release.
I hope so. I'm not saying that 1.3 is not a good step forward in many
respects. I do believe that some care and attention is necessary to
mend compatibility with 1.2 and that the Category and Priority removal
attempts has much more serious side-effects than requiring source code
updates...
--
Jess Holle
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
