Curt, Thanks for all of this hard work around this. I want to try this out on my machine, so I may have some comments and questions after this evening.
-Mark > -----Original Message----- > From: Curt Arnold [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Friday, August 19, 2005 7:26 PM > To: Log4J Developers List > Subject: Yet another release candidate > > I've posted an log4j 1.2.12 release candidate log4j-1.2.12rc4 to > http://people.apache.org/~carnold/logging-log4j-1.2.12rc4.zip and > http://people.apache.org/~carnold/logging-log4j-1.2.12rc4.tar.gz. > This is not explicitly not an official release and should not be used > for anything other than test in preparation of the eventual > log4j-1.2.12. Since I hope we are getting close to a real release, > this RC has no internal markers that it is not a release and if > accepted as the release after an appropriate vote (which I'm not > calling for), the archives could simply be renamed and signed. The > CVS for logging-cvs and logging-site have been tagged with v1_2_12_rc4. > > The major different between rc4 and the previous rc3 and rcTEST- > jdk1.2 is that this rc4 was build with JDK 1.3 (Sun JDK 1.3.1_15 on > Windows 2000 to be more specific). I've been a better part of the > last two days building and rebuilding log4j distributions on multiple > JDK's on clean virtual machines and comparing them with previous > releases and running them on earlier JVM's. I think JDK 1.3 is the > right answer. > > There is no explicit statement on the compilers used to prepare > earlier editions of log4j and the class files do not provide any > obvious clues to the compiler that emitted them. There are two > distinguishing characteristics in the generated Javadoc that allow > you to reasonably determine the version of javadoc used. JDK 1.2 and > 1.3 generated Javadoc use "frameset.dtd", JDK 1.4 and later use > "loose.dtd". JDK 1.2 uses <FONT ID="..."> to specify a font, and JDK > 1.3 and later use <FONT CLASS="...">. These clues suggest > log4j-1.2.9 and 1.2.5 were both built with a JDK 1.3 and that > log4j-1.2.11 was built with a JDK 1.4. > > The JIT error that has been annoying us lately seems to be specific > to JDK 1.4 and later compilers. With the recent modifications, log4j > can be built and tested (on the same JDK) using any version from 1.2 > to 1.5. Building on 1.2 requires rebuilding apache-ant-1.6.5 since > it seems to have also been build with a JDK 1.4 compiler. > > The JDK 1.2 and 1.3 builds could be successfully tested with a subset > of the unit tests on JDK 1.1. Neither Ant 1.6.x or jakarta-oro > support JDK 1.1. To work around this a batch file was created to run > a subset of the tests that would have been run by tests/build.xml. > jakarta-oro only used JDK 1.2 specific classes and substituting > Hashtable for HashMap and Vector for ArrayList and rebuilding (again > using JDK 1.3) was sufficient to run the unit tests. > > A few unit tests are known and expected to fail on JDK 1.1. > LevelTest.testDeserializeINFO will fail since the readResolve method > that replaces the freshly created level object with the Level.INFO is > not invoked. FileAppenderTest.testDirectoryCreation also fails which > suggest that log4j will not be able to create missing directories > when running on JDK 1.1. Also, tests involving the MDC will fail on > JDK 1.1 since MDC is JDK 1.2 specific. > > http://people.apache.org/~carnold/rcTEST_vs_rc4.txt contains a diff > of rc4 with rcTEST-jdk1.2 (omitting Javadoc differences) and is > fairly short. Most of the recent changes were in the test suite > which is not included in the distribution. > > build.properties.sample was update to reflect currently available > versions of support jars. > > build.xml had the "release" target and javac.* properties added. > > All the example/*.class are different. The jars are named > differently (and I expect are different internally). > > docs/HISTORY.txt has a speculative release date for 1.2.12 of next > Friday. I've also removed the "release" notices for the earlier > rcs. Since they will not be available in the archives, I don't think > it has much value to describe a distribution that is not available. > In addition, "release" is inappropriate to describe the earlier rcs > since none of them were ever accepted as a LS release. You could say > "prepared" or something like that, if they must be mentioned. > > A link to FAQ.html was fixed. > > The LF5 documentation that was in log4j-1.2.9 was restored. > log4j-1.2.11 and the 1.2.12rcs had the LF5 graphics but not the HTML > pages. build.xml did not rebuild the LF5 document, but did not clean > it either, so I'm guessing that it was using stale copies from a > previous build. > > A broken link to chainsaw.html was replaced to a link to http:// > logging.apache.org. > > rcTEST had reverted the CategoryKey changes which I assume was a > production artifact. > > The missing directory creation in FileAppender did not check that the > getParent() was not null. This caused a NullPointerException in JDK > 1.1 in the unit tests. The same fix needs to be propagated to the > CVS HEAD. > > The change in LoggerRepository avoids a Jikes compiler bug. I had > not intended to commit the change but compiling under Jikes is a good > thing to support. > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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]
