I guess what I was thinking was an incremental approach in 1.3 that does not break backwards compatibility. [I'd think that would be a better use of time/energy than the Priority vs. Level and Category vs. Logger mess...]
I'm against requiring Java 5 for log4j 1.3. 2.0 though is fine. Originally log4j 1.3 was going to only require JDK 1.2! But we've taken so long that I think we should probably revisit what we will require. Even JDK 1.3 is getting long in the tooth.
I think we need to get a discussion going as to finalizing what our plans are for 1.3, because we're just drifting at the moment.
As an aside, Jess be reminded that a lot of Apache folks are at ApacheCon soon, so don't take it personally if there is a quiet response at the mometn. (I'm in Australia, wishing I was at ApacheCon.. :( )
Paul
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
