logging-log4j-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jess Holle <je...@ptc.com>
Subject Re: Log4j 1.3 Woes
Date Tue, 29 Nov 2005 11:45:09 GMT
Mark Womack wrote:

> Jess,
> There are more class/source/binary incompatibilities in the 1.3 alpha 
> version of log4j than most people are happy with.  You are not the 
> first to outline them.  Curt Arnold has also detailed a number that he 
> was concerned about.  It is an item that will be addressed as we march 
> to beta.  We actually have a build target to create a report that 
> outlines the api differences between 1.2 and the current 1.3 version.
> The 1.3 version has been going on for too long, with lots of changes 
> and additions being added.  Not all of them have been tracked very 
> well for impact, and it is a reason we are where we are at.  It's 
> going to take some time to clean it up, but I am confident we can do 
> it.  Maintaining a high level of compatibility between versions is 
> pretty important.
> That said, there are going to be some incompatibilities or changes.  
> While we will clean up the gratuitious changes, we are going to make 
> changes and move forward in areas we feel are important.
> When will 1.3 ship?  I don't know yet.  It is really up to all of us 
> committers to get it in gear.  I think we are all ready to dig in.  I 
> appreciate the information you have posted here, and would like to see 
> you involved in the process.

I appreciate the forthright responses from you, Curt, and others.

I apologize for getting a bit hot on these issues.  It would be good if 
the 1.3 documentation on the site spelled out that this is where things 
are at -- as I now wonder whether the changes I made to be 1.3 
compatible were a waste of time, for instance.

I would like to see the isEnabledFor(Priority), etc, issue addressed as 
soon as possible as this would appear to affect many libraries which use 
log4j.  I may go ahead and do so myself for testing purposes (by 
reintroducing the Priority class as that would appear to be the only way 
to get binary compatibility with existing binaries).  I'd like to see if 
addressing this suffices to clear up the binary incompatibilities in our 
applications and go from there.

I also feel that a firm attempt to address the deadlock issues should be 
made in 1.3.  It was my understanding that such an attempt had already 
been made in 1.3.  Am I mistaken?

Jess Holle

To unsubscribe, e-mail: log4j-dev-unsubscribe@logging.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: log4j-dev-help@logging.apache.org

View raw message