I'm indifferent on this issue except I really don't think much time should be
invested in Log4j 1.x and, of course, I would like to see most of the energy
focused on 2.0. While minor issues can and should be addressed, I would like to
have an alpha release of Log4j2 as soon as the build and web
+1 Love to see new log 4j with java 1.4 or 1.5 is fine. We do bank
apps (3d secure) but good automated and human testing gave us
confidence to use java 6. Even fixed a socket issue we had with 4 and
5. I know of our bank customers in India use 1.5 too.
And for laggers can do smaller fixes.
On 2012
I'll +1 the move to 1.4, if that's what's deemed necessary. I accept your
arguments that the advantages of moving to Java 1.4 are significant enough to
be worth it while maintaining compatibility with older environments that are,
most likely, at least Java 1.4 these days. And Java 1.3 users
On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 3:04 PM, Christian Grobmeier wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 5:58 PM, Jacob Kjome wrote:
> > Extract LF5 and chainsaw 1.x from log4j.jar and release them as separate
> > jars, thus removing bloat from the Log4j library. They are not
> libraries,
> > but desktop tools, an
On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 5:58 PM, Jacob Kjome wrote:
> Extract LF5 and chainsaw 1.x from log4j.jar and release them as separate
> jars, thus removing bloat from the Log4j library. They are not libraries,
> but desktop tools, and can depend on the absolute latest version of Java for
> all I care.
My $0.02...
Extract LF5 and chainsaw 1.x from log4j.jar and release them as separate jars,
thus removing bloat from the Log4j library. They are not libraries, but
desktop tools, and can depend on the absolute latest version of Java for all I
care.
Log4j proper, the logging library, on the
I don't think you can really do this because of ambiguity.
Scott
On Mar 15, 2012, at 11:17 AM, Christian Grobmeier
wrote:
On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 4:07 PM, Gary Gregory
wrote:
On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 10:55 AM, Christian Grobmeier >
wrote:
If I understand you right, your suggestion is
I'm not sure this is worth doing? One issue I can think of breaking
compatibility with the SLF4J API (and possibly commons-logging). I realize
it's not the Apache Logging Project's responsibility to maintain compatibility
with SLF4J, but I'm not sure it's worth doing at this late juncture fo
On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 4:25 PM, Gary Gregory wrote:
>>
>> Question: how important is 100% bc for 1.2.x line? My assumption is:
>> very much... but well, as mentioned, I am not really opposed - just
>> careful
>
>
> As long as I can do a couple of search and replaces, BC is not that
> important to
On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 11:17 AM, Christian Grobmeier
wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 4:07 PM, Gary Gregory wrote:
> > On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 10:55 AM, Christian Grobmeier <
> grobme...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> If I understand you right, your suggestion is to add:
> >> error(Throwable t)
On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 4:07 PM, Gary Gregory wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 10:55 AM, Christian Grobmeier
> wrote:
>>
>> If I understand you right, your suggestion is to add:
>> error(Throwable t)
>> I don't see a reason why this cannot happen...
>> We just should not remove methods to keep bc
On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 10:55 AM, Christian Grobmeier
wrote:
> If I understand you right, your suggestion is to add:
> error(Throwable t)
> I don't see a reason why this cannot happen...
> We just should not remove methods to keep bc, but adding should not be a
> problem
>
For 1.4? :)
Gary
>
>
I think advertising 1.4 or higher is fine. FYI I ported trunk and
extras to PBP (basically 1.4) with a few changes.
Scott
On Mar 15, 2012, at 10:41 AM, Christian Grobmeier
wrote:
Fellows,
Gary Gregory, our mate over from Commons-Land (et al) has created a
new feature:
https://issues.
If I understand you right, your suggestion is to add:
error(Throwable t)
I don't see a reason why this cannot happen...
We just should not remove methods to keep bc, but adding should not be a problem
Cheers!
Christian
On Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 8:09 PM, Rich Midwinter
wrote:
> Hi
>
>
> I note that
Fellows,
Gary Gregory, our mate over from Commons-Land (et al) has created a new feature:
https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52913
I asked him if it would conform to jdk 1.3. He tested and said his
change would, but there are errors on other components. Please see
below. Basically
15 matches
Mail list logo
