One point of interest: I've been working on changes to make log4j and the extras companions build and run on Personal Basis Profile 1.1, which is almost Java 1.4. There were a few minor changes, replacing JavaBeans introspection with reflection was the main issue.
Since the changes I made were compatible, it may make sense to contribute them back, possibly in a branch, as a new version of log4j-mini. Scott On Mon, Aug 15, 2011 at 7:14 AM, Ralph Goers <[email protected]>wrote: > I used a lot of what was in extras but I haven't looked at the other stuff. > If there is stuff that warrants being brought forward I see no reason not > to. > > I think it makes sense for log4j 1.x and companions to be in synch. > > Ralph > > On Aug 15, 2011, at 6:59 AM, Christian Grobmeier wrote: > > >> No matter what you do log4j looks really decaying. :-) That is one > reason I am working on 2.0. It targets 1.5 and actually makes use of > features at that JDK level. > >> > >> Log4j 1.x is getting almost no attention these days. I wouldn't > recommend changing the source and target levels. I can't speak to adding or > removing UTF-8 as I'm not sure what that means. > > > > Am I right with my assumption that the companions will become obsolete > > with Log4j 2.0? > > If yes, I would like to change the companions configuration to the > > current log4j configuration > > > > Cheers > > > > > >> > >> Ralph > >> > >> On Aug 15, 2011, at 3:57 AM, Christian Grobmeier wrote: > >> > >>> For log4j it is: > >>> <source>1.3</source> > >>> <target>1.1</target> > >>> > >>> For companions component, receivers and extras: > >>> <source>1.4</source> > >>> <target>1.4</target> > >>> <encoding>UTF-8</encoding> > >>> > >>> This is true for the maven pom, but not for the build.xml which uses > >>> 1.2 and 1.1 (which is scary btw) > >>> > >>> For the unreleased zeroconf: > >>> <source>1.2</source> > >>> <target>1.1</target> > >>> > >>> Does it make sense to have different compiler configurations for add > >>> ons to the original log4j? > >>> > >>> For sake of compatiblity, we can do the following: > >>> > >>> #1: use 1.4 for all, including log4j. 1.3 is really ancient > >>> #2: use 1.5 for all, including log4j, because even 1.4 is long time > dead > >>> #3: leave log4j as it is, use the same configuration for companions > >>> (and remove UTF-8) > >>> #4: do #4, but include UTf-8 to log4j build > >>> > >>> To be honest, I am all for #2. I know, bc and such, but targeting for > >>> 1.1 makes log4j really look decaying. I would agree to #4, if #2 does > >>> not find friends. > >>> > >>> Your thoughts? > >>> > >>> Cheers > >>> Christian > >>> > >>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- > >>> 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] > >> > >> > > > > > > > > -- > > http://www.grobmeier.de > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > 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] > >
