RE: Binary compatibility between versions of log4j

Ceki, Just wanted one more voice supporting the work you and the various developers who contribute to log4j are doing. Thanks! Thanks! Thanks! I use log4j in several projects without glitches due to the logging. I appreciate the work you do!!! Mark McDowell -- To unsubscribe, e-mail:

Re: Binary compatibility between versions of log4j

Great! I can't argue on problems with versions of log4j, I only use 1.2, and doesn't need to integrate with components delivered with or depending on earlier versions. I will survive a fair amount of changes, I am not unhappy. Your assertion here is very powerful, and indeed showing strengths

Re: Binary compatibility between versions of log4j

At 10:34 12.06.2002 +0200, Giuseppe Madonna wrote: >Yes, the classic and painless way. Some days ago, I was arguing about that >approach in "Differences in XMLConfiguration beetween ver. 1.1 and 1.2" >mail. Was your XML config file written for 1.1 not readable in log4j 1.2? Did log4j break backwa

Re: Binary compatibility between versions of log4j

Someone recently claimed on a mailing list, on general@jakarta if I recall, that log4j interfaces were changing by the day. This is so patently untrue that I chose not to respond. Given the substantial number of log4j users, if we whimsically changed interfaces, the resulting uproar would be dea

Re: Binary compatibility between versions of log4j

- Original Message - From: "Niclas Hedhman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Log4J Developers List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, June 12, 2002 6:14 AM Subject: Re: Binary compatibility between versions of log4j > Ceki, I can undertstand that you are

Re: Binary compatibility between versions of log4j

On Tuesday 19 March 2002 22:44, Rafael Alvarez wrote: > Some may say that testcases written for Junit are easily modifiable > with a text-replacing tools, and that's true. I'm just making a point. I can make another example; JDK 1.4 introduced Throwable.getStackTrace(), which broke my binary com

Re[2]: Binary compatibility between versions of log4j

Paul Duffin wrote: RA>> ... The JUnit project suffered a big impact when the assert RA>> keyword was introduced in jdk1.4 (the same case as log4j PD> Thanks for explaining that, that is obviously a problem with the PD> java compilers ... PD> However, there is an option to the JDK 1.4 compiler whic

Re: Binary compatibility between versions of log4j

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 ve

Re: Binary compatibility between versions of log4j

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

Re: Binary compatibility between versions of log4j

At 15:29 11.06.2002 +0100, you wrote: >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 ab

Re: Binary compatibility between versions of log4j

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 big BUT here) you'll never know what wil

Re: Binary compatibility between versions of log4j

At 15:18 11.06.2002 +0100, Paul Duffin wrote: >As has been illustrated in other posts log4j does not have a very >good history when it comes to binary compatability. What has been illustrated was: 1) Category.assert was replaced with Category.assertLog without deprecation. First, no one has eve

Re: Binary compatibility between versions of log4j

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

Re: Binary compatibility between versions of log4j

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

Re: Binary compatibility between versions of log4j

- 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. > > &

RE: Binary compatibility between versions of log4j

OK. I'll close the thread. -Original Message- From: Ceki Gülcü [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: 11 June 2002 13:56 To: Log4J Developers List Subject: RE: Binary compatibility between versions of log4j You're wasting my time. At 13:44 11.06.2002 +0100, you wrote: >

RE: Binary compatibility between versions of log4j

You're wasting my time. At 13:44 11.06.2002 +0100, you wrote: >Great so your "Problem Definition" was a trap rather than a constructive >comment. Sorry I didn't step into it. > > > > > > > Sigh. > > > > >So in the spirit of not being constructive consider: > >Problem: > >My project uses product

Re: Binary compatibility between versions of log4j

At 13:33 11.06.2002 +0100, Paul Duffin wrote: >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

RE: Binary compatibility between versions of log4j

Oops I forgot - I did say I'd be happy to work with that Problem Definition so I did step into it. My mistake. -Original Message- From: John Armstrong [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: 11 June 2002 13:44 To: 'Log4J Developers List' Subject: RE: Binary compatibility betw

RE: Binary compatibility between versions of log4j

Great so your "Problem Definition" was a trap rather than a constructive comment. Sorry I didn't step into it. > > > > Sigh. > > So in the spirit of not being constructive consider: Problem: My project uses product X which depends on log4j version 1.0.4 (it uses Category.assert). My project al

Re: Binary compatibility between versions of log4j

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

Re: Binary compatibility between versions of log4j

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 while but it will allow new code and old c

Re: Binary compatibility between versions of log4j

to run with. > >Wolf > > > -Ursprüngliche Nachricht- > > Von: Ceki Gülcü [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > Gesendet: Dienstag, 11. Juni 2002 11:56 > > An: Log4J Developers List > > Betreff: RE: Binary compatibility between versions of log4j > > > >

RE: Binary compatibility between versions of log4j

Ceki's definition of the problem meets my practical concerns and so I am happy to run with it. Clearly Ceki wishes to reduce the scope of the problem - I quite agree that this should be done. I wouldn't want to do this as part of the problem definition myself because I would consider that to be se

Re: Binary compatibility between versions of log4j

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

Re: Binary compatibility between versions of log4j

11:56 > An: Log4J Developers List > Betreff: RE: Binary compatibility between versions of log4j > > > > Problem definition: > > My company is considering adopting log4j as its logging framework in a > new project. However, we are worried about the removal of

Re: Binary compatibility between versions of log4j

At 11:02 11.06.2002 +0100, you wrote: >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?" >

Re: Binary compatibility between versions of log4j

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

RE: Binary compatibility between versions of log4j

Problem definition: My company is considering adopting log4j as its logging framework in a new project. However, we are worried about the removal of the Category and Priority classes in future log4j releases. (The javadocs suggest that these classes may be removed in 2H2003.) How can we be sure

RE: Binary compatibility between versions of log4j

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 apparently "any of log4j may become binary incomp

RE: Binary compatibility between versions of log4j

Before we rush to find a solution, can we first define the problem please? For instance, what part or parts of log4j are binary incompatible? At 09:18 11.06.2002 +0100, John Armstrong wrote: >Thanks for the replies. I would like to summarize. > >There seem to be three basic views: > >1) There i

Re: Binary compatibility between versions of log4j

In fact, you have another choice, maybe not tantalizing, but possible. Repackage the Log4J source files into your own packages. In that case, you remove your dependency on incompatible upgrades for all eternity, and your user does not necessary know that Log4J is involved. (I remember we did

RE: Binary compatibility between versions of log4j

Thanks for the replies. I would like to summarize. There seem to be three basic views: 1) There is no problem (Ceki Gülcü, Anders Kristensen) 2) Binary compatibility should be maintained to some extent, the question is how (John Armstrong, Doug, Sean Hager, Niclas Hedhman, Paul Duffin) 3) Work r

Re: Binary compatibility between versions of log4j

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

Re: Binary compatibility between versions of log4j

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

Re: Binary compatibility between versions of log4j

On Thu, Jun 06, 2002 at 10:25:11AM -0400, Scott Miller wrote: > Yes, the options seem to be many > > 1) Don't upgrade, in which case bug fixes can either be performed by > A) Log4J developers. > B) You. Bugs? For the last 2 years, we've run log4j 0.8.3 in our core app. Never had any problem

Re: Binary compatibility between versions of log4j

On Thursday 06 June 2002 22:18, Anders Kristensen wrote: > Well, you always have the option of not upgrading to newer versions of > log4j. It sounds like that's the strategy you've chosen for JDBC > drivers. Then what you need is a assurance that the old version you're > using will continue to be

RE: Binary compatibility between versions of log4j

> 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 like to try and tempt you: Anothe

RE: Binary compatibility between versions of log4j

In case I was not clear, the Category class will not be removed before mid 2003. This does NOT mean that it will be removed on the 1st of June 2003. It may be removed in 2005 or... never. At 07:02 06.06.2002 -0700, Doug wrote: >well said. the Logger -> Category change is quite >significant and

RE: Binary compatibility between versions of log4j

rsday, June 06, 2002 10:19 AM To: Log4J Developers List Subject: Re: Binary compatibility between versions of log4j Well, you always have the option of not upgrading to newer versions of log4j. It sounds like that's the strategy you've chosen for JDBC drivers. Then what you need is a ass

Re: Binary compatibility between versions of log4j

use log4j in a JDBC driver with a 10 year life > expectancy. > > > > -Original Message- > From: Ceki Gülcü [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: 06 June 2002 12:34 > To: Log4J Developers List > Subject: Re: Binary compatibility between versions of log4j >

RE: Binary compatibility between versions of log4j

actly the situation where concerns > about interoperability > are paramount. > > I hope you're tempted - or failing that I hope you > can convince me that it > wouldn't be irresponsible to use log4j in a JDBC > driver with a 10 year life > expectancy. > > >

RE: Binary compatibility between versions of log4j

ssage- From: Ceki Gülcü [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: 06 June 2002 12:34 To: Log4J Developers List Subject: Re: Binary compatibility between versions of log4j John, This is a deep and tough question. The problem of binary compatibility is intrinsic to the nature of software. On one side,

Re: Binary compatibility between versions of log4j

John, This is a deep and tough question. The problem of binary compatibility is intrinsic to the nature of software. On one side, unlike other engineering endeavors, software can be easily modified and enhanced. On the other side, this make it very easy to break compatibility with previous versio

Binary compatibility between versions of log4j

What guarantees are there (if any) for binary compatibility between different versions of log4j? We have recently had to upgrade from version 1.0.4 of log4j to version 1.1.3. I was surprised to notice that there was not complete binary compatibility between these releases though fortunately it wa