I mentioned the Scheduler specifically, but we can start using more of the "recent" standard jdk classes. I think that is a plus. And we are focusing on backwards compatibility with our own api.
-Mark On 2/23/06, Yoav Shapira <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hola, > Since 1.3 is so focused on backwards-compatibility, why even change > the JDK version? OTOH, log4j 2.0, which will hopefully be free to do > more fun stuff, should be Java5 IMHO... > > Yoav > > On 2/23/06, Curt Arnold <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > On Feb 23, 2006, at 11:31 AM, Jess Holle wrote: > > > > > I'm sure I'm in the minority here, but 1.2.13 seems fine for > > > "legacy" versions of Java, i.e. everything prior to Java 5. > > > > > > I'd be fine with requiring Java 5 for log4j 1.3 and using the best > > > concurrency, etc, utilities it has to offer. > > > > > > It would be difficult, at least, to retain compatibility with log4j > > 1.2 and migrate to use of JDK 1.5 concurrency. Minimizing and > > reworking concurrency concerns is a log4j 2.0 issue and that would > > seem to be the time to jump to JDK 1.5 in my opinion. > > > > JDK 1.3 seems to be a reasonable target to me. To support JDK 1.4 as > > a target, there would have to be some specific benefit identified. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > > -- > Yoav Shapira > System Design and Management Fellow > MIT Sloan School of Management > Cambridge, MA, USA > [EMAIL PROTECTED] / www.yoavshapira.com > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
