Curt has raised a number of issues that prove this issue needs to be discussed further on log4j-dev prior to an official release.
I'm against a public release of 1.2.10 until we as a group agree on the appropriate changes. Scott -----Original Message----- From: Curt Arnold [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sat 4/30/2005 8:57 AM To: Log4J Developers List Cc: Subject: Re: Release of log4j version 1.2.10 I have added a mild disclaimer to binary distributions page in the CVS for logging-site. I also added a link to the cvsweb for logging-chainsaw. At the moment, the pages served by logging.apache.org do not show either modification. I'm hoping it is a replication lag. Given that there was no vote on log4j 1.2.10 and significant issues worthy of discussion, I felt that is was essential that there be some disclaimer so that unsuspecting visitors to the log4j web site would not download a supposed production release that does not have the endorsement of the PMC. Text is: Disclaimer: This release was posted without a required vote and may be withdrawn. In my previous message, I had attempted to describe one mechanism that an SLF4J facade over log4j could offer comparable performance to a direct implementation of SLF4J within log4j. There are likely other approaches that could also work and the one I outlined may not be the best. The intent was not to start a discussion on how write a performant facade, but that there was the potential for a performant facade so committing to a direct implementation in a production release was premature. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
<<winmail.dat>>
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
