Re: Log4J 1.x and JDK 9

Ah ok, that's reasonable. On 17 July 2016 at 11:19, Remko Popma wrote: > I deliberately did not want to suggest technical obstacles are the reason > for not doing another 1.2 release. I thought that would muddy the waters... > > The main message I wanted to send out is >

Re: Log4J 1.x and JDK 9

I deliberately did not want to suggest technical obstacles are the reason for not doing another 1.2 release. I thought that would muddy the waters... The main message I wanted to send out is "Log4j 1.2 is End of Life. We have a successor that is much, much better and it is called Log4j 2. We can

Re: Log4J 1.x and JDK 9

You might want to point out that it doesn't even compile in Java 9, too, otherwise that thing about the MDC sounds like a "trivial" bug to fix. I'm sure there's more problems than just the version number due to modules (e.g., custom log4j 1 plugins would need to perform module hacks to make

Re: Log4J 1.x and JDK 9

Blogged: https://blogs.apache.org/logging/entry/moving_on_to_log4j_2 Let me know if you want to change anything. Remko On Sun, Jul 17, 2016 at 3:05 PM, Ralph Goers wrote: > +1 > > Ralph > > On Jul 16, 2016, at 10:44 PM, Remko Popma wrote: >

Re: Log4J 1.x and JDK 9

+1 Ralph > On Jul 16, 2016, at 10:44 PM, Remko Popma wrote: > > > > Sent from my iPhone > > On 2016/07/17, at 3:30, Matt Sicker > wrote: > >> That sounds like a great idea. >> >> On 16 July 2016 at 11:16, Gary Gregory