RE: [VOTE] Requiring JDK 1.2

2002-10-19 Thread mwomack
+1

I would like to move more into the future and use the more modern classes
available in jdk 1.2 (even the simple ones like HashMap instead of
Hashtable, etc.).  And I agree that it takes too much of our limited effort
to provide backward compatibility to jdk 1.1.  Most, if not all, of the
Jakarta projects have already standardized on jdk 1.2.

I would like to see a survey of jdk 1.1 usage on the log4j user list.  As a
developer I want to move to jdk 1.2, but as a tool log4j needs to provide
solutions to the developers using it.  If there is a large group of log4j
developers still living in the jdk 1.1 world, then I could consider keeping
compatibility.

-Mark

(sorry for the delay in voting...I was out of town last week)

> -Original Message-
> From: Ceki Gulcu [mailto:ceki@;qos.ch]
> Sent: Tuesday, October 15, 2002 12:34 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: [VOTE] Requiring JDK 1.2
>
>
> Hello all,
>
> Given the hoops we have to jump through in order to support JDK 1.1
> and given the limiteed the resources at our disposal, I propose to
> drop support for JDK 1.1 and require JDK 1.2 as of log4j version
> 1.3. This will result in cleaner code and some problems faced by our
> users will automagically disappear. For example, the NDC.remove method
> is required only because JDK 1.1 does not support ThreadLocal
> variables. NDC.remove can be a pita:
>
> http://www.mail-archive.com/jboss-development%40lists.sourceforge.
net/msg30906.html

Anyway, here is my +1 for requiring JDK 1.2 as of log4j version 1.3.


--
Ceki

TCP implementations will follow a general principle of robustness: be
conservative in what you do, be liberal in what you accept from
others. -- Jon Postel, RFC 793



--
To unsubscribe, e-mail:   
For additional commands, e-mail: 


--
To unsubscribe, e-mail:   
For additional commands, e-mail: 




Re: [VOTE] Requiring JDK 1.2

2002-10-18 Thread Paul Glezen

I don't really see the point of extending the support of JDK 1.1 for future
versions of log4j.  Log4j has been full featured and stable for a long
time.  Any one of log4j releases 1.3 and backwards are more than enough for
most development environments constrained to run in JDK 1.1.  Most customer
sites I visit that are using log4j, don't upgrade frequently.  They are
happy enough with the first version they download and have better things to
do than keep their logging infrastructure on the bleeding edge.

Environments that require JDK 1.1 are probably running all kinds of
back-leveled Java libraries, tools and runtime environments.  Running a
back-leveled log4j should not be a problem for these environments.  That
was the motivation for my "+1".

Cheers,
- Paul

Paul Glezen
Consulting IT Specialist
IBM Software Services for WebSphere
818 539 3321


robert burrell donkin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> on 10/18/2002
09:41:33 AM

Please respond to "Log4J Developers List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

To:"Log4J Developers List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
cc:
Subject:Re: [VOTE] Requiring JDK 1.2



On Thursday, October 17, 2002, at 11:58 PM, Ceki Gülcü wrote:

> At 15:05 17.10.2002 -0700, you wrote:
>> I do not know what all of the 1.2 dependent bits are, but it should be
>> possible to abstract those components into interfaces and create version
>> specific instances from a factory.  So, for the NDC bits, you can
>> abstract the ThreadLocal usage, and use a substitute (perhaps with a low
>> priority bg thread to clean up) on 1.1 and use a ThreadLocal for 1.2.
>>
>> Seems plausible that this can allow Log4j to be compatible with 1.1, 1.2
>> + more.
>>
>> Any reason why such an approach would not work?
>
> It is definitely feasible, it just takes time and energy. Bluntly put, I
> prefer to spend my time and energy on other things. If someone else wants
> to do it, they are free to work on log4j 1.2 or even fork.

i think that this is the crucial point - lack of developer energy. there
isn't sufficient energy amongst the core team to push onwards and retain
JDK 1.1 compatibility.

ceki has indicated that the 1.2.x release series will still be available
for JDK1.1-compliant releases. if there are enough volunteers out there
with the required time and energy then continuing the development of a JDK
1.1 compliant version, then that will happen. does anyone out there care
enough?

- robert


--
To unsubscribe, e-mail:   <mailto:log4j-dev-unsubscribe@;jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:log4j-dev-help@;jakarta.apache.org>






--
To unsubscribe, e-mail:   <mailto:log4j-dev-unsubscribe@;jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:log4j-dev-help@;jakarta.apache.org>




Re: [VOTE] Requiring JDK 1.2

2002-10-18 Thread robert burrell donkin
On Thursday, October 17, 2002, at 11:58 PM, Ceki Gülcü wrote:


At 15:05 17.10.2002 -0700, you wrote:

I do not know what all of the 1.2 dependent bits are, but it should be
possible to abstract those components into interfaces and create version
specific instances from a factory.  So, for the NDC bits, you can
abstract the ThreadLocal usage, and use a substitute (perhaps with a low
priority bg thread to clean up) on 1.1 and use a ThreadLocal for 1.2.

Seems plausible that this can allow Log4j to be compatible with 1.1, 1.2
+ more.

Any reason why such an approach would not work?


It is definitely feasible, it just takes time and energy. Bluntly put, I 
prefer to spend my time and energy on other things. If someone else wants 
to do it, they are free to work on log4j 1.2 or even fork.

i think that this is the crucial point - lack of developer energy. there 
isn't sufficient energy amongst the core team to push onwards and retain 
JDK 1.1 compatibility.

ceki has indicated that the 1.2.x release series will still be available 
for JDK1.1-compliant releases. if there are enough volunteers out there 
with the required time and energy then continuing the development of a JDK 
1.1 compliant version, then that will happen. does anyone out there care 
enough?

- robert


--
To unsubscribe, e-mail:   
For additional commands, e-mail: 



Re: [VOTE] Requiring JDK 1.2

2002-10-18 Thread Ceki Gülcü
At 22:52 17.10.2002 +0100, you wrote:

JDK 1.1 support has always been a positive feature of log4j but i can 
understand the arguments for switching future releases to JDK1.2.

as a consideration to users who require JDK1.1 support, it would be nice 
to keep the 1.2 release series in cold storage. a link to the latest log4j 
1.2 release on the web site would be good and it would also be nice to 
keep the log4j 1.2 alive (somewhere) in cvs so that (if necessary) bugs 
could be fixed.

There is a separate log4j 1.2 branch. We won't remove it.


- robert


--
Ceki

TCP implementations will follow a general principle of robustness: be
conservative in what you do, be liberal in what you accept from
others. -- Jon Postel, RFC 793



--
To unsubscribe, e-mail:   
For additional commands, e-mail: 




Re: [VOTE] Requiring JDK 1.2

2002-10-18 Thread robert burrell donkin
JDK 1.1 support has always been a positive feature of log4j but i can 
understand the arguments for switching future releases to JDK1.2.

as a consideration to users who require JDK1.1 support, it would be nice 
to keep the 1.2 release series in cold storage. a link to the latest log4j 
1.2 release on the web site would be good and it would also be nice to 
keep the log4j 1.2 alive (somewhere) in cvs so that (if necessary) bugs 
could be fixed.

- robert

On Tuesday, October 15, 2002, at 10:18 PM, Scott Sanders wrote:

I am also not a committer, but I am a prolific user.  I am +1, as log4j < 
1.3 is full of features and stable.

Thanks Ceki and crew,
Scott

-Original Message-
From: Macarty, Jay {PBSG} [mailto:Jay.Macarty@;pbsg.com]
Sent: Tuesday, October 15, 2002 1:37 PM
To: 'Log4J Developers List'
Subject: RE: [VOTE] Requiring JDK 1.2


I agree as well.

+1


-Original Message-
From: Jim Moore [mailto:jim.moore@;veritas.com]
Sent: Tuesday, October 15, 2002 3:30 PM
To: 'Log4J Developers List'
Subject: RE: [VOTE] Requiring JDK 1.2


Starting with log4j 1.3 I think the timing would be
appropriate to drop JDK
1.1 support.

+1


-Original Message-
From: Ceki Gülcü [mailto:ceki@;qos.ch]
Sent: Tuesday, October 15, 2002 3:34 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [VOTE] Requiring JDK 1.2


Hello all,

Given the hoops we have to jump through in order to support
JDK 1.1 and
given the limiteed the resources at our disposal, I propose
to drop support
for JDK 1.1 and require JDK 1.2 as of log4j version 1.3. This
will result in
cleaner code and some problems faced by our users will automagically
disappear. For example, the NDC.remove method is required
only because JDK
1.1 does not support ThreadLocal variables. NDC.remove can be a pita:


http://www.mail-archive.com/jboss-
development%40lists.sourceforge.net/msg309
06.html

Anyway, here is my +1 for requiring JDK 1.2 as of log4j version 1.3.


--
Ceki

TCP implementations will follow a general principle of robustness: be
conservative in what you do, be liberal in what you accept from others. -
-
Jon Postel, RFC 793

--
To unsubscribe, e-mail:   <mailto:log4j-dev-
[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:log4j-dev-
[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

--
To unsubscribe, e-mail:   <mailto:log4j-dev-
[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:log4j-dev-
[EMAIL PROTECTED]>


--
To unsubscribe, e-mail:   <mailto:log4j-dev-
[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:log4j-dev-
[EMAIL PROTECTED]>




--
To unsubscribe, e-mail:   <mailto:log4j-dev-unsubscribe@;jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:log4j-dev-help@;jakarta.apache.org>




RE: [VOTE] Requiring JDK 1.2

2002-10-18 Thread Jason Dillon
I do not know what all of the 1.2 dependent bits are, but it should be
possible to abstract those components into interfaces and create version
specific instances from a factory.  So, for the NDC bits, you can
abstract the ThreadLocal usage, and use a substitute (perhaps with a low
priority bg thread to clean up) on 1.1 and use a ThreadLocal for 1.2.

Seems plausible that this can allow Log4j to be compatible with 1.1, 1.2
+ more.

Any reason why such an approach would not work?

BTW, if it comes down to it, leaving Log4j 1.2 for 1.1 compatibility and
Log4j 1.3 for modern vms is cool too.

Personally I don't use 1.1 so I couldn't care less about support for it.
But I it is one of the features I mention when pitching Log4j vs. JDK
1.4crap to clients.

If it is possible to have Log4j 1.3 support both by abstraction, then I
would say that would be the way.

--jason


> -Original Message-
> From: robert burrell donkin
[mailto:robertburrelldonkin@;blueyonder.co.uk]
> Sent: Thursday, October 17, 2002 2:53 PM
> To: Log4J Developers List
> Subject: Re: [VOTE] Requiring JDK 1.2
> 
> JDK 1.1 support has always been a positive feature of log4j but i can
> understand the arguments for switching future releases to JDK1.2.
> 
> as a consideration to users who require JDK1.1 support, it would be
nice
> to keep the 1.2 release series in cold storage. a link to the latest
log4j
> 1.2 release on the web site would be good and it would also be nice to
> keep the log4j 1.2 alive (somewhere) in cvs so that (if necessary)
bugs
> could be fixed.
> 
> - robert
> 
> On Tuesday, October 15, 2002, at 10:18 PM, Scott Sanders wrote:
> 
> > I am also not a committer, but I am a prolific user.  I am +1, as
log4j
> <
> > 1.3 is full of features and stable.
> >
> > Thanks Ceki and crew,
> > Scott
> >
> >> -Original Message-
> >> From: Macarty, Jay {PBSG} [mailto:Jay.Macarty@;pbsg.com]
> >> Sent: Tuesday, October 15, 2002 1:37 PM
> >> To: 'Log4J Developers List'
> >> Subject: RE: [VOTE] Requiring JDK 1.2
> >>
> >>
> >> I agree as well.
> >>
> >> +1
> >>
> >>
> >> -Original Message-
> >> From: Jim Moore [mailto:jim.moore@;veritas.com]
> >> Sent: Tuesday, October 15, 2002 3:30 PM
> >> To: 'Log4J Developers List'
> >> Subject: RE: [VOTE] Requiring JDK 1.2
> >>
> >>
> >> Starting with log4j 1.3 I think the timing would be
> >> appropriate to drop JDK
> >> 1.1 support.
> >>
> >> +1
> >>
> >>
> >> -Original Message-
> >> From: Ceki Gülcü [mailto:ceki@;qos.ch]
> >> Sent: Tuesday, October 15, 2002 3:34 PM
> >> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >> Subject: [VOTE] Requiring JDK 1.2
> >>
> >>
> >> Hello all,
> >>
> >> Given the hoops we have to jump through in order to support
> >> JDK 1.1 and
> >> given the limiteed the resources at our disposal, I propose
> >> to drop support
> >> for JDK 1.1 and require JDK 1.2 as of log4j version 1.3. This
> >> will result in
> >> cleaner code and some problems faced by our users will
automagically
> >> disappear. For example, the NDC.remove method is required
> >> only because JDK
> >> 1.1 does not support ThreadLocal variables. NDC.remove can be a
pita:
> >>
> > http://www.mail-archive.com/jboss-
> > development%40lists.sourceforge.net/msg309
> > 06.html
> >
> > Anyway, here is my +1 for requiring JDK 1.2 as of log4j version 1.3.
> >
> >
> > --
> > Ceki
> >
> > TCP implementations will follow a general principle of robustness:
be
> > conservative in what you do, be liberal in what you accept from
others.
> -
> > -
> > Jon Postel, RFC 793
> >
> > --
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail:   <mailto:log4j-dev-
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:log4j-dev-
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >
> > --
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail:   <mailto:log4j-dev-
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:log4j-dev-
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >
> >
> > --
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail:   <mailto:log4j-dev-
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:log4j-dev-
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >
> 
> 
> --
> To unsubscribe, e-mail:   <mailto:log4j-dev-
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:log4j-dev-
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]>



--
To unsubscribe, e-mail:   <mailto:log4j-dev-unsubscribe@;jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:log4j-dev-help@;jakarta.apache.org>




RE: [VOTE] Requiring JDK 1.2

2002-10-18 Thread Ceki Gülcü


At 15:05 17.10.2002 -0700, you wrote:

I do not know what all of the 1.2 dependent bits are, but it should be
possible to abstract those components into interfaces and create version
specific instances from a factory.  So, for the NDC bits, you can
abstract the ThreadLocal usage, and use a substitute (perhaps with a low
priority bg thread to clean up) on 1.1 and use a ThreadLocal for 1.2.

Seems plausible that this can allow Log4j to be compatible with 1.1, 1.2
+ more.

Any reason why such an approach would not work?


It is definitely feasible, it just takes time and energy. Bluntly put, I 
prefer to spend my time and energy on other things. If someone else wants 
to do it, they are free to work on log4j 1.2 or even fork.

BTW, if it comes down to it, leaving Log4j 1.2 for 1.1 compatibility and
Log4j 1.3 for modern vms is cool too.


The approach has the merit of being the least effort approach.


Personally I don't use 1.1 so I couldn't care less about support for it.
But I it is one of the features I mention when pitching Log4j vs. JDK
1.4crap to clients.


I think that you'll have plenty of good reasons with log4j 1.3. :-)


If it is possible to have Log4j 1.3 support both by abstraction, then I
would say that would be the way.


It is possible just not economic.


--jason



--
Ceki

TCP implementations will follow a general principle of robustness: be
conservative in what you do, be liberal in what you accept from
others. -- Jon Postel, RFC 793



--
To unsubscribe, e-mail:   
For additional commands, e-mail: 




Re: [VOTE] Requiring JDK 1.2

2002-10-15 Thread Bob Frank

I'm not a committer either, but another comment from the peanut gallery 
...

+1


---
Bob Frank
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
check out the Log4Cocoa Alpha
http://sourceforge.net/projects/log4cocoa


--
To unsubscribe, e-mail:   
For additional commands, e-mail: 




RE: [VOTE] Requiring JDK 1.2

2002-10-15 Thread Paul Austin

+1.2 :)

--
To unsubscribe, e-mail:   
For additional commands, e-mail: 




Re: [VOTE] Requiring JDK 1.2

2002-10-15 Thread Paul Glezen


+1

Environments in which a JDK as old as 1.1 is required should also be fine
with a back-level version of log4j.

- Paul

Paul Glezen
Consulting IT Specialist
IBM Software Services for WebSphere
818 539 3321


Jacob Kjome <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> on 10/15/2002 04:28:11 PM

Please respond to "Log4J Developers List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

To:"Log4J Developers List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
cc:
Subject:Re: [VOTE] Requiring JDK 1.2




+1

Jake

At 09:34 PM 10/15/2002 +0200, you wrote:
>Hello all,
>
>Given the hoops we have to jump through in order to support JDK 1.1
>and given the limiteed the resources at our disposal, I propose to
>drop support for JDK 1.1 and require JDK 1.2 as of log4j version
>1.3. This will result in cleaner code and some problems faced by our
>users will automagically disappear. For example, the NDC.remove method
>is required only because JDK 1.1 does not support ThreadLocal
>variables. NDC.remove can be a pita:
>
>http://www.mail-archive.com/jboss-development%40lists.sourceforge.net/msg30906.html

>
>Anyway, here is my +1 for requiring JDK 1.2 as of log4j version 1.3.
>
>
>--
>Ceki
>
>TCP implementations will follow a general principle of robustness: be
>conservative in what you do, be liberal in what you accept from
>others. -- Jon Postel, RFC 793
>
>
>
>--
>To unsubscribe, e-mail:   <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>






--
To unsubscribe, e-mail:   <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>




Re: [VOTE] Requiring JDK 1.2

2002-10-15 Thread Jacob Kjome


+1

Jake

At 09:34 PM 10/15/2002 +0200, you wrote:
>Hello all,
>
>Given the hoops we have to jump through in order to support JDK 1.1
>and given the limiteed the resources at our disposal, I propose to
>drop support for JDK 1.1 and require JDK 1.2 as of log4j version
>1.3. This will result in cleaner code and some problems faced by our
>users will automagically disappear. For example, the NDC.remove method
>is required only because JDK 1.1 does not support ThreadLocal
>variables. NDC.remove can be a pita:
>
>http://www.mail-archive.com/jboss-development%40lists.sourceforge.net/msg30906.html
>
>Anyway, here is my +1 for requiring JDK 1.2 as of log4j version 1.3.
>
>
>--
>Ceki
>
>TCP implementations will follow a general principle of robustness: be
>conservative in what you do, be liberal in what you accept from
>others. -- Jon Postel, RFC 793
>
>
>
>--
>To unsubscribe, e-mail:   
>For additional commands, e-mail: 



RE: [VOTE] Requiring JDK 1.2

2002-10-15 Thread Oliver Burn

+1

> -Original Message-
> From: Ceki Gulcu [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Wednesday, 16 October 2002 05:34
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: [VOTE] Requiring JDK 1.2
> 
> 
> Hello all,
> 
> Given the hoops we have to jump through in order to support JDK 1.1
> and given the limiteed the resources at our disposal, I propose to
> drop support for JDK 1.1 and require JDK 1.2 as of log4j version
> 1.3. This will result in cleaner code and some problems faced by our
> users will automagically disappear. For example, the NDC.remove method
> is required only because JDK 1.1 does not support ThreadLocal
> variables. NDC.remove can be a pita:
> 
> http://www.mail-archive.com/jboss-development%40lists.sourceforge.net/msg30906.html
> 
> Anyway, here is my +1 for requiring JDK 1.2 as of log4j version 1.3.
> 
> 
> --
> Ceki
> 
> TCP implementations will follow a general principle of robustness: be
> conservative in what you do, be liberal in what you accept from
> others. -- Jon Postel, RFC 793
> 
> 
> 
> --
> To unsubscribe, e-mail:   
> For additional commands, e-mail: 
> 

--
To unsubscribe, e-mail:   
For additional commands, e-mail: 




RE: [VOTE] Requiring JDK 1.2

2002-10-15 Thread Scott Sanders

I am also not a committer, but I am a prolific user.  I am +1, as log4j < 1.3 is full 
of features and stable.

Thanks Ceki and crew,
Scott

> -Original Message-
> From: Macarty, Jay {PBSG} [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
> Sent: Tuesday, October 15, 2002 1:37 PM
> To: 'Log4J Developers List'
> Subject: RE: [VOTE] Requiring JDK 1.2
> 
> 
> I agree as well.
> 
> +1
> 
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Jim Moore [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Tuesday, October 15, 2002 3:30 PM
> To: 'Log4J Developers List'
> Subject: RE: [VOTE] Requiring JDK 1.2
> 
> 
> Starting with log4j 1.3 I think the timing would be 
> appropriate to drop JDK
> 1.1 support.
> 
> +1
> 
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Ceki Gülcü [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
> Sent: Tuesday, October 15, 2002 3:34 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: [VOTE] Requiring JDK 1.2
> 
> 
> Hello all,
> 
> Given the hoops we have to jump through in order to support 
> JDK 1.1 and
> given the limiteed the resources at our disposal, I propose 
> to drop support
> for JDK 1.1 and require JDK 1.2 as of log4j version 1.3. This 
> will result in
> cleaner code and some problems faced by our users will automagically
> disappear. For example, the NDC.remove method is required 
> only because JDK
> 1.1 does not support ThreadLocal variables. NDC.remove can be a pita:
> 
http://www.mail-archive.com/jboss-development%40lists.sourceforge.net/msg309
06.html

Anyway, here is my +1 for requiring JDK 1.2 as of log4j version 1.3.


--
Ceki

TCP implementations will follow a general principle of robustness: be
conservative in what you do, be liberal in what you accept from others. --
Jon Postel, RFC 793

--
To unsubscribe, e-mail:   <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

--
To unsubscribe, e-mail:   <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>


--
To unsubscribe, e-mail:   <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>




RE: [VOTE] Requiring JDK 1.2

2002-10-15 Thread Macarty, Jay {PBSG}

I agree as well.

+1 


-Original Message-
From: Jim Moore [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, October 15, 2002 3:30 PM
To: 'Log4J Developers List'
Subject: RE: [VOTE] Requiring JDK 1.2


Starting with log4j 1.3 I think the timing would be appropriate to drop JDK
1.1 support.

+1


-Original Message-
From: Ceki Gülcü [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
Sent: Tuesday, October 15, 2002 3:34 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [VOTE] Requiring JDK 1.2


Hello all,

Given the hoops we have to jump through in order to support JDK 1.1 and
given the limiteed the resources at our disposal, I propose to drop support
for JDK 1.1 and require JDK 1.2 as of log4j version 1.3. This will result in
cleaner code and some problems faced by our users will automagically
disappear. For example, the NDC.remove method is required only because JDK
1.1 does not support ThreadLocal variables. NDC.remove can be a pita:

http://www.mail-archive.com/jboss-development%40lists.sourceforge.net/msg309
06.html

Anyway, here is my +1 for requiring JDK 1.2 as of log4j version 1.3.


--
Ceki

TCP implementations will follow a general principle of robustness: be
conservative in what you do, be liberal in what you accept from others. --
Jon Postel, RFC 793

--
To unsubscribe, e-mail:   <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

--
To unsubscribe, e-mail:   <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>




RE: [VOTE] Requiring JDK 1.2

2002-10-15 Thread Mark Masterson

Hi,

I know I'm not a committer or anything, but FWIW:
+1

Cheers,
Mark



RE: [VOTE] Requiring JDK 1.2

2002-10-15 Thread Jim Moore

Starting with log4j 1.3 I think the timing would be appropriate to drop JDK
1.1 support.

+1


-Original Message-
From: Ceki Gülcü [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
Sent: Tuesday, October 15, 2002 3:34 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [VOTE] Requiring JDK 1.2


Hello all,

Given the hoops we have to jump through in order to support JDK 1.1 and
given the limiteed the resources at our disposal, I propose to drop support
for JDK 1.1 and require JDK 1.2 as of log4j version 1.3. This will result in
cleaner code and some problems faced by our users will automagically
disappear. For example, the NDC.remove method is required only because JDK
1.1 does not support ThreadLocal variables. NDC.remove can be a pita:

http://www.mail-archive.com/jboss-development%40lists.sourceforge.net/msg309
06.html

Anyway, here is my +1 for requiring JDK 1.2 as of log4j version 1.3.


--
Ceki

TCP implementations will follow a general principle of robustness: be
conservative in what you do, be liberal in what you accept from others. --
Jon Postel, RFC 793

--
To unsubscribe, e-mail:   
For additional commands, e-mail: