Boris, all, I checked out JCL 1.1 in various release versions.
It still did not eliminate all the ugly problems from its original architectural deficiencies. Also, a lot of projects require JCL 1.0.4 to lurk around, so *if* Ceki is considering v1. then I would opt for having both versions in parallel. Cheers, Michel Boris Unckel wrote: > Hello, > > the actual version of JCL[1] is 1.1. One major issue was binary > compatibility. > If slf4j does trust this, it could switch from 1.0.4 to 1.1. Another > possibility is > to establish a new additonal pom for 1.1. > > What do you think? > If you are accepting a JCL 1.1 version I could contribute this - but > just if it is reviewed > and "going to trunk" in a defined timeframe. How would such a timeframe be? > > Regards > Boris > > [1] http://jakarta.apache.org/commons/logging/ > _______________________________________________ > dev mailing list > [email protected] > http://www.slf4j.org/mailman/listinfo/dev > -- Michel <dot> Drescher <at> uk <dot> fujitsu <dot> com Fujitsu Laboratories of Europe +44 20 8606 4834 _______________________________________________ dev mailing list [email protected] http://www.slf4j.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
