logging-log4j-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Paul Smith <psm...@aconex.com>
Subject Re: Log4j 1.3 Woes
Date Mon, 28 Nov 2005 20:53:30 GMT

On 29/11/2005, at 7:47 AM, Elias Ross wrote:

> On Mon, 2005-11-28 at 14:07 -0600, Jess Holle wrote:
>> What is breaking so much source code and many existing binaries  
>> really
>> buying?
> In my opinion, removing "Category" would be just like Sun deciding to
> remove "java.util.Emumeration" or some other classes now marked as
> "deprecated."

True.  I'm personally a bit unclear as to whether we are trying to  
maintain binary compatibility with log4j 1.2.x.  I hope so.  I think  
we as a dev team should highlight that this is a primary goal of the  
1.3 release or explicitly mention that we're not.  If we are going to  
aim for compatibility then Jess' reports are disturbing (putting the  
tone of the email aside, the content is sounding valid at first glance).

Please bear in mind that we're in Alpha stage at the moment, there's  
still a lot of change probably left to go.  I would consider what we  
have published so far for 1.3 as a "work in progress, comments  
please" type release.

View raw message