On Mon, Jan 29, 2018 at 8:17 AM, Remko Popma <[email protected]> wrote:
> If we are going to make breaking changes in this release it may be wise to > also do any package renaming in this release to keep the disruption limited > to a single release instead of multiple. > > Specifically, I propose we take this release to do all package renaming to > clarify the difference between classes that are "internal" to Log4j core > and should not be depended on, and packages that we intend to export when > Log4j core becomes a Java 9 module. > > This likely means introducing new "internal" packages and moving classes > and interfaces into these new packages. > > I believe this is in line with what Matt proposed a while ago as the plugin > API for core. All classes and interfaces that are not in an > "internal" package are safe to depend on and we commit to preserving binary > compatibility for such packages. Everything in a package with "internal" in > the name is subject to change. > > Should we aim to complete this work before the 2.11 release? > That's OK with me, and at this point, even though log4j-core is not log4j-api, I would consider calling the release 3.0. Gary
