commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Adam R. B. Jack" <aj...@trysybase.com>
Subject Re: [logging][PROPOSAL] a solution to incompatibility between log4j versions
Date Wed, 19 May 2004 18:22:12 GMT
> >BTW: I also wish folks had updated long ago, we'd have had a much smaller
> >transition, be having discovered this sooner.

I worded this poorly, and failed to get my point across. I meant ... I wish
projects had stopped using deprecated stuff a year ago, heck ... or two.
Progress has to be allowed to happens, so API change will happen ... and I
agree it is a long time to carry around deprecate baggage.

That said, it is an interesting challenge -- aligning the projects is like
aligning the stars -- and good inter-project communications (tough in OSS)
are critical to this. I don't know if the Java language allowed the
class/methods to be marked as deprecated, 'cos I'm sure compiler warning
would have moved things along. I don't know if the technique of sub-classing
(Priority as an alias for Level, or vice-verse) is seen (in hindsight) as a
good technique for API change, or not. This stuff just fascinates me (in the
main 'cos I have to run lots of Java code, and suffer badly when it doesn't
work).

FWIIW: I don't know (wish I did) if there was a time in those two years, a
period of log4j releases, where there were more 'actively used releases'
that supported Priority than both Priority and Level. I wonder when would
have been the right time (the best time, least user pain) for C-L to have
moved, and if there was an opportunity missed there...

BTW: Gump has no ego, all hail folks caring about Jar Hell! :-)

regards,

Adam


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: commons-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: commons-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org


Mime
View raw message