I guess the log4j-mini cannot become truth before the next companion release, right? Because then I would think we should make companion with the same configuration as log4j, and probably increase the configuration later if log4j-mini comes?
On Mon, Aug 15, 2011 at 6:53 PM, Scott Deboy <[email protected]> wrote: > 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] >> > > -- http://www.grobmeier.de --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
