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 case
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 a
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 spen
> As a potential consumer of the "official" build, there are a lot of
> things of the build "machine" that are invisible: the platform, the
> compiler, the version of Ant , the JDK, the specific versions of JAF,
> JMS, JAXP, JNDI, Javamail, Javadoc, etc. Whether the compiler was
> selected by the
Something else came up that ate up my evening, so I did not get a chance to
look at this like I planned. I will work on this tonight; I want to resolve
this and move forward with the release in some fashion. I'll see what I
come up with and we can decide and move forward.
-Mark
> -Original
Hey Ceki,
Do you remember the version of the jdk you used to build v1.2.9? When we
had talked about this before I seem to remember you saying JDK 1.3, but
maybe that was for the v1.3-alpha builds?
-Mark
> -Original Message-
> From: Ceki Gülcü [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Tuesday, A
Endre,
Thanks for the info. Curt has already made some changes in this area, so
I'll see what I can build upon tonight.
-Mark
> -Original Message-
> From: Endre Stølsvik [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Wednesday, August 17, 2005 1:45 AM
> To: Log4J Developers List; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
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 reaso
I got a chance to play with the 1.2 build tonight. Here is what I did:
1) Isolated the build jdk from the Ant runtime jdk.
Basically, I added the following attributes to all of the javac tasks:
fork="yes"
includeAntRuntime="no"
includeJavaRuntime="no"
co
10 matches
Mail list logo
