I can describe the concrete problem I will have with LOGCXX-319 given that
all the code for which I am responsible has been written using log4cxx 0.10
In 0.10, you have to know the macros are "blocks" not "statements" as any
conditional logging macro has to be written without a trailing semicolon.
It may be helpful to document breaking changes in a clear manner.
While the version number may imply instability, the fact that it's
been released by a super longtime PMC already brings up the logistical
issues of backward compatibility and how one wishes to define that.
On Mon, 2 Mar 2020 at 11:2
Guten Tag Ralph Goers,
am Montag, 2. März 2020 um 16:34 schrieben Sie:
> There is a difference between a user’s compile failing vs the build
> having changed.
And which? Things don't work in the worst case either way and need to
be adopted. Why exactly is getting rid of build support by ANT
accep
There is a difference between a user’s compile failing vs the build having
changed. Given how old log4cxx is I would expect it to be used in a fair
number of places despite its version number. I haven’t looked at the code
myself but is there no way to keep it backward compatible while also keep
Guten Tag Stephen Webb,
am Montag, 2. März 2020 um 12:45 schrieben Sie:
> The issue is it has changed to core log4cxx api so that existing 0.10 code
> may not compile.
> The macros are the core log4cxx api.
AFAIK there are no commitments to a stable API anyway, the version
number itself doesn't m
The issue is it has changed to core log4cxx api so that existing 0.10 code
may not compile.
The macros are the core log4cxx api.
On Mon, Mar 2, 2020, 9:32 PM Thorsten Schöning
wrote:
> Guten Tag Stephen Webb,
> am Montag, 2. März 2020 um 11:05 schrieben Sie:
>
> > In my review I did encounter a
Guten Tag Stephen Webb,
am Montag, 2. März 2020 um 11:05 schrieben Sie:
> In my review I did encounter an item of concern to me. I see that 0.11
> cannot be used in place of 0.10 due to LOG4CXX-319. I personally am
> responsible for hundreds of thousands of lines of code that will not work
> with
I have not changed anything. Just used 'mvn post-site'.
It is simply an attempt to see if there is anyone interested in log4cxx.
In my review I did encounter an item of concern to me. I see that 0.11
cannot be used in place of 0.10 due to LOG4CXX-319. I personally am
responsible for hundreds of tho
Guten Tag Stephen Webb,
am Sonntag, 1. März 2020 um 07:19 schrieben Sie:
> I have posted the result of "mvn post-site" to
> https://stephen-webb.github.io/
Looks the same like what is published already to me:
https://logging.apache.org/log4cxx/next_stable/index.html
Shouldn't it be more of inte
