On Sun, 2005-10-09 at 18:49 +1300, Simon Kitching wrote:
> On Fri, 2005-10-07 at 09:24 +0000, Henning P. Schmiedehausen wrote:
> > Simon Kitching <skitching@apache.org> writes:
> >
> > > And do we want to offer 1.3 support, given that 1.3 is still alpha?
> > > I would prefer not to; better to provide a minor release after
> > > log4j 1.3 is released than provide ahead-of-time support and get
> > > it wrong. Actually, for the current release we could provide a
> > > Log4JLogger class with TRACE support, and worry about splitting
> > > into log4j1.2/1.3 when the new version comes along. I would still
> > > like to see the version-checking stuff in the Log4J12Logger class
> > > kept, though.
> >
> > The long stretches of inactivity at JCL would suggest that we better
> > put some support in there now or we might have a situation where 1.3
> > is out and JCL has no support for it for quite a while.
>
> The reason for the long stretches of inactivity is that the issues
> currently existing in JCL are *hard* to fix, and JCL was severely
> under-documented.
>
> However handling something like the log4j 1.2 -> 1.3 change is pretty
> easy. I wouldn't expect much delay getting a new release out to handle
> log4j 1.3.
+1
- robert
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: commons-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: commons-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
|