Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-logging-log4j-dev-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 85704 invoked from network); 16 Aug 2005 04:53:12 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (209.237.227.199) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 16 Aug 2005 04:53:12 -0000 Received: (qmail 29605 invoked by uid 500); 16 Aug 2005 04:53:12 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-logging-log4j-dev-archive@logging.apache.org Received: (qmail 29566 invoked by uid 500); 16 Aug 2005 04:53:11 -0000 Mailing-List: contact log4j-dev-help@logging.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: List-Help: List-Post: List-Id: "Log4J Developers List" Reply-To: "Log4J Developers List" Delivered-To: mailing list log4j-dev@logging.apache.org Received: (qmail 29553 invoked by uid 99); 16 Aug 2005 04:53:11 -0000 Received: from asf.osuosl.org (HELO asf.osuosl.org) (140.211.166.49) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Mon, 15 Aug 2005 21:53:11 -0700 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=10.0 tests= X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: neutral (asf.osuosl.org: local policy) Received: from [68.142.198.209] (HELO smtp110.sbc.mail.mud.yahoo.com) (68.142.198.209) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with SMTP; Mon, 15 Aug 2005 21:53:30 -0700 Received: (qmail 39320 invoked from network); 16 Aug 2005 04:53:07 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO hogwarts) (m-m-womack@sbcglobal.net@68.122.125.210 with login) by smtp110.sbc.mail.mud.yahoo.com with SMTP; 16 Aug 2005 04:53:06 -0000 Message-ID: <000501c5a21e$5c574930$9d04fea9@hogwarts> From: "Mark Womack" To: "Log4J Developers List" References: <0IL90061PV3NLS@mailsj-v1.corp.adobe.com> <2030AF96-718E-4B52-8098-E521E355C2BF@aconex.com> <8F1DC11F-3416-4EE4-82BB-8F41BA1D4450@apache.org> <6982F42E-9790-472A-AD30-D092FED002B1@aconex.com> <583183D0-AB5F-46EB-B48F-476A5EB901CB@apache.org> Subject: Re: log4j 1.3 minimum JDK (was Re: [VOTE] Release log4j 1.2.12rc3) Date: Mon, 15 Aug 2005 21:52:44 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; reply-type=response Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.2180 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2180 X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org X-Spam-Rating: minotaur.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N -1 I think that moving to require 1.2 was enough of a jump. If we start to restrict the JDK's we support to only the more recent, then the usefulness of log4j will be diluted, imo. -Mark ----- Original Message ----- From: "Curt Arnold" To: "Log4J Developers List" Sent: Monday, August 15, 2005 6:31 PM Subject: log4j 1.3 minimum JDK (was Re: [VOTE] Release log4j 1.2.12rc3) > > On Aug 15, 2005, at 8:23 PM, Paul Smith wrote: > >> This does beg the question that one of the original design goals of >> log4j 1.3 was that it's minimum requirement would be JDK 1.2. Are we >> still all in favour of that? I would like to think that JDK 1.3 would >> be an acceptable minimum in this day and age? > > I think we need to break that off into another thread to not confuse the > issue. I could be persuaded. We'd also should specify whether we target > J2ME or some other subset. > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: log4j-dev-unsubscribe@logging.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: log4j-dev-help@logging.apache.org > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: log4j-dev-unsubscribe@logging.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: log4j-dev-help@logging.apache.org