I've been wondering about this myself. I think we should re-look at how
providers are specified as the current solution didn't work well with OSGi.
Plus we kept forgetting to update it with new API versions.
On 3 March 2017 at 13:17, Ralph Goers wrote:
> I created LOG4J2-1836 to address this.
>
I created LOG4J2-1836 to address this.
Ralph
> On Mar 3, 2017, at 12:01 PM, Ralph Goers wrote:
>
> Likewise, I suspect that ProviderUtil should only list 2.6.0 as a compatible
> version since the implementation must be at that level or higher.
>
> Ralph
>
>> On Mar 3, 2017, at 11:58 AM, Ralp
Likewise, I suspect that ProviderUtil should only list 2.6.0 as a compatible
version since the implementation must be at that level or higher.
Ralph
> On Mar 3, 2017, at 11:58 AM, Ralph Goers wrote:
>
> The Log4jAPIVersion in log4j-provider.properties in log4j-core says it
> supports the 2.1.
The Log4jAPIVersion in log4j-provider.properties in log4j-core says it supports
the 2.1.0 API. Is that actually correct? I suspect that if you try to use the
log4j 2.1 API jar with the log4j 2.8.1 core jar there will be problems.
Doesn’t Log4j core require a Log4j API jar that is at least at t
