Ceki Gülcü wrote:
>
> class X {
>public void setYoo(int i) {}
>public void setYoo(String s) {}
> }
>
> If you compile and run Test, you get:
>
> > javac Test.java
> > java Test
> Name: yoo, read: null, write: public void X.setYoo(int)
> Name: class, read: public final native java.la
Giuseppe Madonna wrote:
>
> - Original Message -
> From: "Ceki Gülcü" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "Log4J Developers List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Tuesday, June 11, 2002 12:28 PM
> Subject: Re: Binary compatibility between versions of log4j
>
> > >How about this for a start.
> > >
> > >
Rafael Alvarez wrote:
>
> This topic is getting hotter by the minute!
>
> I agree that binary compatibility between versions is something
> important, as it relieves the end user (us developers) from the
> tedious task of rewriting our app to conform to the latest spec.
>
> BUT (and this is a b
Ceki Gülcü wrote:
>
> You're wasting my time.
>
Actually I think that John's comments sum up the problem very clearly albeit
in a slightly frustrated way and your reaction is not helpful at all. Both
John and I (and others) have serious concerns about this and if you spent
some of your precious
Ceki Gülcü wrote:
>
> Here is a slightly more complicated version of the same:
>
> Problem)
>
> My company is considering adopting log4j as its logging framework in a
> new project which depends on product X which also depends on log4j
> version 1.1. However, we are worried about the removal o
Ceki Gülcü wrote:
>
> At 12:00 11.06.2002 +0100, you wrote:
> >Ceki Gülcü wrote:
> > >
> > > Sigh.
> > >
> >
> >And what exactly do you mean by that !?!
>
> This is from your initial post:
>
>Modify all previous and current versions of log4j to support that
>API. This may take a little
Ceki Gülcü wrote:
>
> Sigh.
>
And what exactly do you mean by that !?!
--
This message may contain confidential information and will be protected
by copyright. If this email isn't for you then we'd be grateful if you
could notify Volantis by return and delete it. You should not copy,
disclose
John Armstrong wrote:
>
> Your question is in a different tense to mine. You ask:
>
> "For instance, what part or parts of log4j ARE binary incompatible?"
>
> My question is:
>
> "what part or parts of log4j MAY BECOME binary incompatible?"
>
> At present the answer to this question is appare
Sean Hager wrote:
>
> > To get to the point I would really like the developers of
> > log4j to say "We
> > are willing to maintain x subset of our API forever with 100% backward
> > compatibility". I understand completely why you would be
> > reluctant to make
> > such a commitment but I would li
I think that the main problem is that the author of the software which
uses log4j is often not in control of either the other software with which
it might be used or the version of log4j that is used.
Anders Kristensen wrote:
>
> Well, you always have the option of not upgrading to newer version
10 matches
Mail list logo
