On Dec 23, 2005, at 6:37 PM, Elias Ross wrote:
On Thu, 2005-12-22 at 00:46 -0600, Curt Arnold wrote:
I'd prefer to expedite the 2.0 branch and get log4j using a much
finer grained locking than maintaining two parallel sets of appenders
with different locking characteristics.
I'd be happy to
On Thu, 2005-12-22 at 00:46 -0600, Curt Arnold wrote:
> I'd prefer to expedite the 2.0 branch and get log4j using a much
> finer grained locking than maintaining two parallel sets of appenders
> with different locking characteristics.
I'd be happy to help expedite a 2.0 release, but it seems
On Dec 23, 2005, at 3:37 PM, Jacob Kjome wrote:
A bit of a sidetrack from the current discussion, but just how big
is log4j-1.3 going to be and just how polluted with 1.2.xx stuff
are we going to make it? Originally, a lot of stuff was refactored
and/or removed and replaced by, arguably
Hi,
> thoughts?
As a team, we're split between wanting binary compatibility at all
costs and wanting to move forward with a cleaner, leaner log4j with
new features that don't necessarily maintain that compatibility.
Because the people who care about backwards compatibility are more
active in bot
A bit of a sidetrack from the current discussion, but just how big is
log4j-1.3 going to be and just how polluted with 1.2.xx stuff are we going
to make it? Originally, a lot of stuff was refactored and/or removed and
replaced by, arguably, better implementations. Last changes I made, I had
