On Wednesday, October 22, 2003, at 06:38 AM, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
Not forcing existing code to update their Log4J makes sense, but the additional complexity for preserving compatibility didn't strike me as a good trade-off.
There doesn't seem to be an overly clean way to do this. Logger is a subclass of Category, so was trying to cook up a strategy to deal with that. However, there's no clean way - if they remove Category as a public class, we're done.
So maybe we do this - to be nice to people, we deprecate SimpleLog4JLogSystem class, the old version and make the one you just fixed Log4JLogSystem, as the old Jon one is now gone. I don't think anyone used the old one anyway.
That way, existing impls work, people who want to be modern use the new one, and we get rid of the SL4JLS next release. (calling it 'simple' only made sense in the context of the other one anyway :)
Done - I'm not overjoyed about changing Log4JLogSystem like that (moving your fixed SL4JLS to L4JLS), but this way, we are backwards compat and have new functionality at the same time.
Let us know what you think.
As you, I think it's confusing. At the same time, Log4JLogSystem is a nice name for what we're providing, and the backwards compat for -- what I assume to be the more widely used -- SimpleLog4JLogSystem is nice, so the trade-off is reasonable.
- Dan
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
