Thanks. I'll try it. A lot of my code that is in production still only "works pretty well". :-)
Also, did I do anything wrong with my enhancement submission? (I understand if everyone is busy, etc but I was just wondering if I did something wrong.) -----Original Message----- From: Paul Smith [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, April 29, 2004 6:16 PM To: 'Log4J Users List' Subject: RE: An odd configuration need... If you want my own personal opinion (and not those of the log4j dev team as a whole, although feel free to step in), I would place the CVS HEAD of log4j in the "works pretty well" category, so somewhere after "basically works" but maybe a touch before "works well". Paul > -----Original Message----- > From: James Stauffer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Friday, April 30, 2004 9:13 AM > To: 'Log4J Users List' > Subject: RE: An odd configuration need... > > > When I develop new code there are 3 stages (at least): in > flux, basically > works, and works well. I understand that it won't be > released until it > works well but I don't want to use it if the parts I need are > still in flux. > If they basically work then I would consider it. > > -----Original Message----- > From: James Stauffer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Thursday, April 29, 2004 6:04 PM > To: 'Log4J Users List' > Subject: RE: An odd configuration need... > > > Often for a new release the code starts out with a lot of > change and then > gradually stabilizes until release. It would be good to know > about how > stable the code is. I realize that there are no guarantees > and I don't > expect any. I just want an honest estimation of how > stable/complete it is. > Do the basic use cases work? Does everything but component X > work? Is > there a TODO list? > There are some things in 1.3 that I would like to have (like > the new rolling > classes) so I'll give it a shot. BTW I submitted a bugzilla > issue for a new > file but I haven't gotten any response. Did I do anything wrong? > > -----Original Message----- > From: Paul Smith [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Thursday, April 29, 2004 5:55 PM > To: 'Log4J Users List' > Subject: RE: An odd configuration need... > > > > Good point. Is there a list of known issues with 1.3 (so I > > can check if I > > need to fix anything before I use it)? One thing is that > > there may be a > > danger that some "interface" will change from now to > release that will > > require changes to how we use it -- pre-release software is > > often more in a > > state of flux and may require more work to keep up. What is > > the state of > > 1.3? How are people using it? > > Yes, you have some good points there. I don't think we could > _guarantee_ > that an interface might change, but I would think that it is > incredibly > unlikely at this point. The only foreseeable changes would > be additional > objects/components or methods. But again, I can't give you > that 100% money > back guarantee. > > You can always look at the new things in 1.3 that you are > interested in (new > Rolling architecture), have a look at the test cases that > Ceki has written > for them and make an evaluation as to how stable it looks. > My vote would be > that this area is looking very good. > > You can then do your own testing, and provide us any > feedback. You can even > make the fixes and send us the patches from your experience! :) > > cheers, > > Paul Smith > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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]
