"Geir Magnusson Jr." wrote:
>
> 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.
Of course we mean 'static' in the release-sense, not static in the 'C
linker' sense.
--
Geir Magnusson Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Developing for the web? See http://jakarta.apache.org/velocity/
