Mark Womack wrote:
Jess,
There are more class/source/binary incompatibilities in the 1.3 alpha
version of log4j than most people are happy with. You are not the
first to outline them. Curt Arnold has also detailed a number that he
was concerned about. It is an item that will be addressed as we march
to beta. We actually have a build target to create a report that
outlines the api differences between 1.2 and the current 1.3 version.
The 1.3 version has been going on for too long, with lots of changes
and additions being added. Not all of them have been tracked very
well for impact, and it is a reason we are where we are at. It's
going to take some time to clean it up, but I am confident we can do
it. Maintaining a high level of compatibility between versions is
pretty important.
That said, there are going to be some incompatibilities or changes.
While we will clean up the gratuitious changes, we are going to make
changes and move forward in areas we feel are important.
When will 1.3 ship? I don't know yet. It is really up to all of us
committers to get it in gear. I think we are all ready to dig in. I
appreciate the information you have posted here, and would like to see
you involved in the process.
I appreciate the forthright responses from you, Curt, and others.
I apologize for getting a bit hot on these issues. It would be good if
the 1.3 documentation on the site spelled out that this is where things
are at -- as I now wonder whether the changes I made to be 1.3
compatible were a waste of time, for instance.
I would like to see the isEnabledFor(Priority), etc, issue addressed as
soon as possible as this would appear to affect many libraries which use
log4j. I may go ahead and do so myself for testing purposes (by
reintroducing the Priority class as that would appear to be the only way
to get binary compatibility with existing binaries). I'd like to see if
addressing this suffices to clear up the binary incompatibilities in our
applications and go from there.
I also feel that a firm attempt to address the deadlock issues should be
made in 1.3. It was my understanding that such an attempt had already
been made in 1.3. Am I mistaken?
--
Jess Holle
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
