logging-log4j-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Ralph Goers <ralph.go...@dslextreme.com>
Subject Re: Roadmap for 3.0
Date Fri, 16 Sep 2016 15:55:03 GMT
That is a very good point!

Sent from my iPhone

> On Sep 16, 2016, at 8:06 AM, Greg Thomas <greg.d.thomas@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> > Remember that many users haven't migrated from 1.2 yet.
> 
> This. IMHO it will become much harder to persuade people to make a jump to 2.x if there
a 3.x in the pipeline that will break BC - they'll just way for 3.x
> 
> Greg
> 
>> On 16 September 2016 at 15:45, Mikael Ståldal <mikael.staldal@magine.com>
wrote:
>> I don't think we should start working on 3.0 any time soon, unless we have to in
order to support Java 9.
>> 
>> And I think we should make a 2.7 release really soon, and then more 2.x releases
after that.
>> 
>> Remember that many users haven't migrated from 1.2 yet.
>> 
>>> On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 8:36 PM, Gary Gregory <garydgregory@gmail.com>
wrote:
>>> Ah, yes, Java 9... it just seems that we need to more clearly define what is
public vs. not and an SPI package seems like nice neat way to do that. That said, it's a lot
of busy work and I am not 100% it is worth it. I am waffling.
>>> 
>>> Gary
>>> 
>>>> On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 11:05 AM, Ralph Goers <ralph.goers@dslextreme.com>
wrote:
>>>> I am nowhere near wanting to do 3.0. But we may want to do it for Java 9
depending on how disruptive that is.  That is one of the reasons I would like to get moving
on Java 9 asap.  I have a feeling we may want to continue the 2.x releases while 3.x is going
just for that reason.
>>>> 
>>>> Ralph
>>>> 
>>>>> On Sep 15, 2016, at 9:46 AM, Gary Gregory <garydgregory@gmail.com>
wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>> Hi All,
>>>>> 
>>>>> Should we start thinking about 3.0 where the main driver is to formalize
a Core SPI package?
>>>>> 
>>>>> Doing this for 2.8 and break BC in Core would be too disruptive.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Doing this for 2.8 and have a Core class implement a SPI interface where
the SPI interface inherits the old interface would be weird.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Or, should we just keep on going as we have and keep Core BC a moving
target?
>>>>> 
>>>>> We could wait to do more 2.x releases and accumulate more deprecated
code (Builders vs factory methods for example).
>>>>> 
>>>>> Thoughts?
>>>>> 
>>>>> Gary
>>>>> 
>>>>> -- 
>>>>> E-Mail: garydgregory@gmail.com | ggregory@apache.org 
>>>>> Java Persistence with Hibernate, Second Edition
>>>>> JUnit in Action, Second Edition
>>>>> Spring Batch in Action
>>>>> Blog: http://garygregory.wordpress.com 
>>>>> Home: http://garygregory.com/
>>>>> Tweet! http://twitter.com/GaryGregory
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> -- 
>>> E-Mail: garydgregory@gmail.com | ggregory@apache.org 
>>> Java Persistence with Hibernate, Second Edition
>>> JUnit in Action, Second Edition
>>> Spring Batch in Action
>>> Blog: http://garygregory.wordpress.com 
>>> Home: http://garygregory.com/
>>> Tweet! http://twitter.com/GaryGregory
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> -- 
>>  
>> 
>> Mikael Ståldal
>> Senior software developer 
>> 
>> Magine TV
>> mikael.staldal@magine.com    
>> Grev Turegatan 3  | 114 46 Stockholm, Sweden  |   www.magine.com 
>> 
>> Privileged and/or Confidential Information may be contained in this message. If you
are not the addressee indicated in this message
>> (or responsible for delivery of the message to such a person), you may not copy or
deliver this message to anyone. In such case, 
>> you should destroy this message and kindly notify the sender by reply email.   
> 

Mime
View raw message