https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50039
--- Comment #5 from Scott Deboy <[email protected]> 2010-10-03 12:56:14 EDT --- I'm fine with maintaining compatibility, but honestly, FormattingInfo seems useless to end users (it happens to be public but doesn't have to be, and it is final). If there ever is a log4j 2.0, I would suggest we make explicit statements of support for compatibility moving forward - specifically, I think we need to define interfaces for anything we expect end users to want to extend and we maintain those interface contracts, and everything else is implementation and users should have no expectation of implementation classes going forward, even if they are public. log4j has been mired in its current state in large part (IMO) because of resistance to modify the api due to concerns over backward compatibility. Its definitely a dis-incentive to participation if everything that is a public class can only have additions made and never have things removed or changed. -- Configure bugmail: https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the assignee for the bug. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
