> >BTW: I also wish folks had updated long ago, we'd have had a much smaller > >transition, be having discovered this sooner.
I worded this poorly, and failed to get my point across. I meant ... I wish projects had stopped using deprecated stuff a year ago, heck ... or two. Progress has to be allowed to happens, so API change will happen ... and I agree it is a long time to carry around deprecate baggage. That said, it is an interesting challenge -- aligning the projects is like aligning the stars -- and good inter-project communications (tough in OSS) are critical to this. I don't know if the Java language allowed the class/methods to be marked as deprecated, 'cos I'm sure compiler warning would have moved things along. I don't know if the technique of sub-classing (Priority as an alias for Level, or vice-verse) is seen (in hindsight) as a good technique for API change, or not. This stuff just fascinates me (in the main 'cos I have to run lots of Java code, and suffer badly when it doesn't work). FWIIW: I don't know (wish I did) if there was a time in those two years, a period of log4j releases, where there were more 'actively used releases' that supported Priority than both Priority and Level. I wonder when would have been the right time (the best time, least user pain) for C-L to have moved, and if there was an opportunity missed there... BTW: Gump has no ego, all hail folks caring about Jar Hell! :-) regards, Adam --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
