On Tue, 16 Aug 2005, Mark Womack wrote:
| But is there some specific reason why we want to upgrade and be compatible
| with only = JDK 1.3? Is there some core class we really need to use in
| order to make log4j better? If not, then I don't see a compelling reason to
| self-limit ourselves to =
On Tue, 16 Aug 2005, Mark Womack wrote:
| We can make it so that log4j is compatible with 1.2 and happy when it runs.
| Just compile using jdk 1.2 instead of jdk 1.3 or 1.4. I think the messages
| we are seeing are related to compiling the release lib with 1.4 instead of
| 1.2 (or 1.1 in the
On Aug 17, 2005, at 3:45 AM, Endre Stølsvik wrote:
So, set source=1.2, target=1.2 and bootclasspath=/usr/java/jdk1.2/
rt.jar,
and the code will compile according to 1.2 rules, compile to 1.2
classfiles, and be compiled against 1.2 runtime libraries. It will
thus
run on 1.2 JREs!
That is
Hi,
I wholeheartedly agree. Dropping 1.2 support just because it's old is
very silly - there must be some -reason- behind that choice.
Regards,
Endre
True, but the reason doesn't have to be technical. If, for a given log4j
release, the marginal cost (in terms of developer time spent on
, August 16, 2005 11:38 AM
To: Log4J Developers List
Subject: RE: log4j 1.3 minimum JDK (was Re: [VOTE] Release log4j
1.2.12rc3)
As far as log4j 1.2.x is concerned, I believe that JDK 1.2
compatibility was real. I can attest that for all log4j versions prior
to 1.2.9, the log4j core
]
Subject: RE: log4j 1.3 minimum JDK (was Re: [VOTE] Release log4j
1.2.12rc3)
On Tue, 16 Aug 2005, Mark Womack wrote:
| We can make it so that log4j is compatible with 1.2 and happy when it
runs.
| Just compile using jdk 1.2 instead of jdk 1.3 or 1.4. I think the
messages
| we are seeing
At 11:10 AM 8/17/2005 -0400, you wrote:
Hi,
I wholeheartedly agree. Dropping 1.2 support just because it's old is
very silly - there must be some -reason- behind that choice.
Did you bother reading both of my responses? Apparently not.
Regards,
Endre
True, but the reason doesn't have
[EMAIL PROTECTED] / www.yoavshapira.com
-Original Message-
From: Curt Arnold [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, August 15, 2005 9:32 PM
To: Log4J Developers List
Subject: log4j 1.3 minimum JDK (was Re: [VOTE] Release log4j 1.2.12rc3)
On Aug 15, 2005, at 8:23 PM, Paul
PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, August 15, 2005 10:41 PM
To: 'Log4J Developers List'
Subject: RE: log4j 1.3 minimum JDK (was Re: [VOTE] Release log4j
1.2.12rc3)
Hola,
+1 on JDK 1.3. It's more than five years old now. If someone hasn't
updated their JVM in 5 years, they're not going
As far as log4j 1.2.x is concerned, I believe that JDK 1.2
compatibility was real. I can attest that for all log4j versions prior
to 1.2.9, the log4j core was verified to compile under JDK 1.2. The
same holds true for log4j 1.3beta.
At 08:26 PM 8/16/2005, you wrote:
Quoting Mark Womack [EMAIL
To: Log4J Developers List; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: log4j 1.3 minimum JDK (was Re: [VOTE] Release log4j
1.2.12rc3)
Quoting Mark Womack [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
But is there some specific reason why we want to upgrade and be
compatible
with only = JDK 1.3? Is there some core class we really
On Aug 16, 2005, at 1:58 PM, Mark Womack wrote:
We can make it so that log4j is compatible with 1.2 and happy when
it runs.
Just compile using jdk 1.2 instead of jdk 1.3 or 1.4.
That should be possible, but I suggested using Jikes while producing
the distribution since it seemed to be an
We can make it so that log4j is compatible with 1.2 and happy when
it runs.
Just compile using jdk 1.2 instead of jdk 1.3 or 1.4.
That should be possible, but I suggested using Jikes while producing
the distribution since it seemed to be an adequate and less
complicated solution.
I
We may have a low threshold, but we are not the primary users of theframework. And abandoning jdk 1.2 for our convenience is not a good reason.I find it incredibly annoying when I go to use a tool or a framework andfind that doesn't support the version I am running, or is not compatiblewith the
Quoting Ceki Gülcü [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
As far as log4j 1.2.x is concerned, I believe that JDK 1.2
compatibility was real. I can attest that for all log4j versions prior
to 1.2.9, the log4j core was verified to compile under JDK 1.2. The
same holds true for log4j 1.3beta.
Then we should
At 08:31 PM 8/15/2005 -0500, you wrote:
On Aug 15, 2005, at 8:23 PM, Paul Smith wrote:
This does beg the question that one of the original design goals of
log4j 1.3 was that it's minimum requirement would be JDK 1.2. Are
we still all in favour of that? I would like to think that JDK 1.3
oh and here's my (obvious) +1 on JDK 1.3
On 16/08/2005, at 12:33 PM, Jacob Kjome wrote:
At 08:31 PM 8/15/2005 -0500, you wrote:
On Aug 15, 2005, at 8:23 PM, Paul Smith wrote:
This does beg the question that one of the original design goals of
log4j 1.3 was that it's minimum requirement
@logging.apache.org
Sent: Monday, August 15, 2005 6:31 PM
Subject: log4j 1.3 minimum JDK (was Re: [VOTE] Release log4j 1.2.12rc3)
On Aug 15, 2005, at 8:23 PM, Paul Smith wrote:
This does beg the question that one of the original design goals of
log4j 1.3 was that it's minimum requirement would
-Original Message-
From: Curt Arnold [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, August 15, 2005 9:32 PM
To: Log4J Developers List
Subject: log4j 1.3 minimum JDK (was Re: [VOTE] Release log4j 1.2.12rc3)
On Aug 15, 2005, at 8:23 PM, Paul Smith wrote:
This does beg the question that one
and Management Fellow
MIT Sloan School of Management
Cambridge, MA USA
[EMAIL PROTECTED] / www.yoavshapira.com
-Original Message-
From: Curt Arnold [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, August 15, 2005 9:32 PM
To: Log4J Developers List
Subject: log4j 1.3 minimum JDK (was Re: [VOTE] Release log4j
20 matches
Mail list logo
