We can delete the zeroconf companion, I integrated zeroconf support directly into all network-based appenders and receivers, using reflection.
Scott On Tue, Aug 16, 2011 at 6:11 AM, Christian Grobmeier <[email protected]>wrote: > I just found out that (except zerconfig) all companiosn use jdk 1.4 > features - there is need to use 1.4 compiler settings now. > You can go forward with 1.4, if you like without caring on companions > > On Mon, Aug 15, 2011 at 7:37 PM, Scott Deboy <[email protected]> > wrote: > > I think timing-wise I could contribute the work back in the next two to > > three weeks. > > > > Scott > > > > On Mon, Aug 15, 2011 at 9:56 AM, Christian Grobmeier < > [email protected]> > > wrote: > >> > >> 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] > >> > > > > > > > > -- > http://www.grobmeier.de > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] > For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] > >
