Paul Glezen wrote:
>
> I'm glad to see that Velocity will be able to change. I agree with Anders
> that in the future we should practice deprecating a log4j interface before
> entirely removing it. Since log4j is more like a library than an
> application, any change in any interface has the potential to break someone
> out there.
>
> 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.
Yes - we want a static version - we will note in our documentation that
our log4j adapter is compatible with log4j release XX (or however its
described) and update accordingly as log4j releases.
geir
--
Geir Magnusson Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Developing for the web? See http://jakarta.apache.org/velocity/
