Curt Arnold wrote:
On Oct 9, 2009, at 8:18 AM, Jess Holle wrote:
Curt Arnold wrote:
2. org.apache.log4j.RollingFileAppender and
org.apache.log4j.DailyRollingFileAppender have a disproportionate
number of bugs. The extras companion has the log4j 1.3 rework which
still is subject to the multiple instance problem. An java.nio base
replacement for all of the above is just an idea at the moment.
Should we add Javadoc comments on RFA and DRFA to point users to the
extras or should we try to get an nio framework into the next dot
release (goodbye JDK 1.3 compatibility)?
Anyone who still needs 1.3 compatibility is unlikely to move to the
latest log4j 1.2.x even. The rest of log4j users should also not be
held back so much by the few who are stuck on 1.3.
I think that we could lose JDK 1.3 compatibility without consequence
at this time. Actually, as long as the java.nio stuff was in a
specific appender then the rest of log4j would still run on 1.3.
There are various locking improvements (removal of bottlenecks, etc)
that would be good as well (I've made these in my own fork of log4j
and proposed them in the past). In cases the best solution to these
requires Java 5. In others, it may not be possible to maintain
absolute compatibility (though I think I'm awfully close).
I'd like 1.2.16 to have only low risk changes. Maybe cut 1.2.16 and
then look at reviewing the patches again.
Sounds good. I was only bringing it up in terms of possible reasons to
require JVMs newer than 1.4 even in the future.
--
Jess Holle
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
