Hi Georg,

please see my comments below

Cheers,

Siegfried Goeschl

> On 19 Mar 2015, at 20:09, Georg Kallidis <[email protected]> 
> wrote:
> 
> Hi list,
> 
> concerning upcoming releases of Turbine:
> 
> - Turbine parent release should be either done without voting or not - we 
> still have not concluded IMO or have we? I think, it should be released this 
> year to enable up-to-date releases (including current reference to Apache 
> parent pom, ..). 

As far as I’m concerned it would be at least a vote with lazy consensus :-)

> 
> - The next Turbine RC is waiting for Torque 4.1 (which is not yet released), 
> right? It should have the scheduler removed or replaced. What are the other 
> goals for this release or the release after this? May be, we should make a 
> clear cut and explicitely support only Java 8? If we decide to do so, the 
> same should be true for the Fulcrum components to be consistent. Should we do 
> it by allowing 1.x releases (Java 5) and 2.x (Java 8)? And Http/2-support is 
> coming (in browsers is and in Java 9)..

-1 on explicitly supporting ONLY Java 8. Having said that 

* we have to support JDK 8 but there is no need to add Java 8 only features
* I’m sure that some Turbine installation in the wild have not seen a JDK 
update for years :-)
* I have customer which are stuck to JDK 1.6/1.7 (mostly AS400)

> 
> - Logging: Turbine Trunk had log4j as logging framework and has currently 
> slf4j with default log4j, cft.http://www.slf4j.org/legacy.html. This should 
> conform with Avalog default logging behaviour. May be logback would be even 
> better instead of log4j (same for the Fulcrum components)? But log4j 2.x 
> would be an alternative, too. I am happy with each one of them. Which way we 
> should go? 


The Avalon Framework depends slightly on Log4j

https://repo1.maven.org/maven2/org/apache/avalon/framework/avalon-framework-impl/4.3.1/avalon-framework-impl-4.3.1.pom
 
<https://repo1.maven.org/maven2/org/apache/avalon/framework/avalon-framework-impl/4.3.1/avalon-framework-impl-4.3.1.pom>

and a couple of Fulcrum components are importing log4j as well - what would be 
the benefits?

> 
> Best regards, Georg
> 
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
> 
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]

Reply via email to