At 11:58 PM 4/3/2007, Jess Holle wrote:
Cu
For a 1.4.x or 2.0.x, I'm not so concerned about breaking extensions.
I'm more concerned about breaking "application"
code -- i.e. use of the logging APIs for logging
and for configuration thereof, including
sophisticated code that adds hierarchy
listeners, uses logger repository selectors,
etc, but not including custom appenders,
layouts, etc. I would hope that any really
worthwhile extensions would be ported by someone
and could be upgraded along with log4j as
needed, whereas application code is unlikely to
be so malleable. I realize the distinction is
somewhat arbitrary and I could understand some
of the more sophisticated (weird?) application
usages breaking as long as there was a suitable
replacement for the old functionality that was
broken in the process. "Normal" usage of log4j
APIs that most applications stick to should not be broken, however.
+1
Other than myself, I am unaware of anyone else
with the same opinion. Others may agree, but they
usually don't express it as clearly as above.
--
Ceki Gülcü
Logback: The reliable, generic, fast and flexible logging framework for Java.
http://logback.qos.ch
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
