Yes. log4j 2.0 would need to be in a new package. But hopefully the client upgrade might be as simple as changing the package imports. Now extensions or more complicated configuration would probably need to be rewritten.
-Mark On 12/20/05, Jess Holle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Mark Womack wrote: > > - new package name (log4j2?) > > I believe that's a must -- else you pose serious issues to both those > attempting to use log4j 1.x and those attempting to use log4j 2.x -- > they'll be stepping on each other in practice otherwise. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
