Jacob Kjome wrote:
Hi Jess,
I suggest you post a tracking bug report for this so that these changes don't
just
get lost on the list.
I may manage to get to this prior to leaving on vacation. My changes
won't be lost for me at any rate :-)
Sounds like you did a lot of great work that could be the
basis for Log4j-2.0. Maybe you can gather up enough steam to make 2.0 a
reality.
This was a just off and on work over a few days. I'm not sure if I have
the "steam" to make 2.0 a reality. I'd like to see a broader
performance, scalability, and thread safety sweep across log4j, but I'm
not sure that's all of what 2.0 should be nor that I can afford to power
even that much of 2.0 at this time.
And I agree. JDK1.5+ should be what 2.0 targets. There no compelling reason to
support previous versions. However, ease of migration would be a big issue. If
2.0 changes in ways that make it hard for users migrate from 1.2.x to 2.0, then
they just won't bother. I'd say as long as the primary APIs stay the same
(Logger, Level, etc...), there's shouldn't be an issue.
Agreed.
A big question as per my other e-mail on this thread is how much
compatibility should be maintained for existing Appenders, Layouts, etc.
I can see that we'd want new improved Appenders and Layouts and base
classes thereof, but could also see it making migration more palatable
if old Appender and/or Layout extensions kept working.
--
Jess Holle
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
