On Sun, 2005-10-09 at 18:49 +1300, Simon Kitching wrote: > On Fri, 2005-10-07 at 09:24 +0000, Henning P. Schmiedehausen wrote: > > Simon Kitching <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > > > And do we want to offer 1.3 support, given that 1.3 is still alpha? > > > I would prefer not to; better to provide a minor release after > > > log4j 1.3 is released than provide ahead-of-time support and get > > > it wrong. Actually, for the current release we could provide a > > > Log4JLogger class with TRACE support, and worry about splitting > > > into log4j1.2/1.3 when the new version comes along. I would still > > > like to see the version-checking stuff in the Log4J12Logger class > > > kept, though. > > > > The long stretches of inactivity at JCL would suggest that we better > > put some support in there now or we might have a situation where 1.3 > > is out and JCL has no support for it for quite a while. > > The reason for the long stretches of inactivity is that the issues > currently existing in JCL are *hard* to fix, and JCL was severely > under-documented. > > However handling something like the log4j 1.2 -> 1.3 change is pretty > easy. I wouldn't expect much delay getting a new release out to handle > log4j 1.3.
+1 - robert --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
