Meant to copy both lists...
- Sam Ruby
---------------------- Forwarded by Sam Ruby/Raleigh/IBM on 03/20/2001
09:24 AM ---------------------------
Sam Ruby
03/20/2001 09:23 AM
To: "LOG4J Developers Mailing List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
cc:
From: Sam Ruby/Raleigh/IBM@IBMUS
Subject: Re: log4j changes impacting velocity (Document link: Sam Ruby)
Paul Glezen wrote:
>
> I think it would be safer for velocity to link to a static version
> of log4j rather than to whatever is reflected in the latest CVS
> source tree. This would provide for a more orderly transition
> between versions and allow the log4j developers to prepare a list of
> changes and their implications.
There is no static linking in the C/C++ sense in Java.
The released version of Velocity will include a copy of the log4j jar file.
The current velocity code checked into cvs works with version 1.04 of
log4j. Turbine uses Velocity and log4j. If/when there is a 1.05 of log4j,
in what order should turbine and velocity upgrade? Which jar should be
first in the classpath?
The right fix is to maintain interfaces with a period of deprecation in
order to help with matters such as these. This means that the right answer
to the preceeding question should always be the latest released jar
available.
The purpose of Gump is to help identify which changes are important and
their impact. In this case, it appears to have identified an impact that
was not anticipated, and the right fix will be made to minimize the impact.
Ultimately, velocity will have to make the changes, and they have indicated
their willingness to do so.
>From what I can tell, we all win. Yea!
- Sam Ruby
