commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From robert burrell donkin <>
Subject Re: [logging] update docs to specify that java 1.1 is supported
Date Sun, 17 Apr 2005 18:46:03 GMT
On Sat, 2005-04-16 at 00:18 -0700, Brian Stansberry wrote:
> --- Simon Kitching <> wrote:
> > On Fri, 2005-04-15 at 00:02 -0700, Brian Stansberry


> > (b) when working on the revised JCL, regard support
> > for 1.1 as
> > "desirable but not mandatory".
> > 
> Sounds good to me.  Perhaps some of Robert's ideas
> about lifting off a LogFactory superclass will open a
> path to providing support to 1.1 without having to
> overly encumber the normal discovery process.
> > I think at this point the work we already have in
> > progress for JCL is
> > enough without tackling this task too.
> > 
> +1
> I know that for me personally spending the last couple
> evenings digging into the intricacies of getting
> things to work on JDK 1.1 has pretty well exhausted my
> appetite for the topic ;)


restoring support for JCL 1.1 is one of my itches but i agree that the
how can best be determined later. 

this week, i plan to start getting things moving forward again from the
analysis document i published. i'm taking a look at the patches tonight
(thanks for them :) 

i'll pull together some results and take a look at listing the bugs.
maybe i'll put them in bugzilla so that folks can contributing patches
more easily and so discussion is automatically tied together. i have
hopes that many of these can be fixed (and fixed without too much

there are also a couple of other tasks on my list.

i now think that a build which creates just an impl jar is required to
support at least one use case. anyone want to grab this task?

the other is analysing the behaviour of JCL when faced with a bad
behaved context classloader. anyone want to take a stab at this?

- robert

To unsubscribe, e-mail:
For additional commands, e-mail:

View raw message