Paul Smith wrote:
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.
I was never suggesting requiring it -- only leveraging it where
possible. [I'm not *that* self-centered.]
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.
I started writing loads of code against 1.2.x about a year ago expecting
that I'd get to upgrade to a 1.3 "final" in a few months this entire
time. From where I sit it certainly seems like 1.3 is drifting -- there
haven't been any clear signs of progress to those primarily focused on
1.2 in that time.
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.. :( )
I'm not taking it personally. If I was as blunt as I am and took things
personally I'd be in a real sorry state most of the time.
Thanks for pointing out that folk are busy with ApacheCon, however, as I
really was worried that the log4j development community was this sleepy
that loud, obnoxious raising of serious issues didn't stir too much
response or immediate action. Putting this in context with ApacheCon
put a bit more hopeful spin on things...
--
Jess Holle
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
