logging-log4j-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Remko Popma <remko.po...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Deprecated factory methods replaced by builders.
Date Tue, 06 Sep 2016 16:36:10 GMT
That may be the simplest solution. We can think more on what to do with
this in a subsequent release.

On Wed, Sep 7, 2016 at 1:31 AM, Matt Sicker <boards@gmail.com> wrote:

> Should we revert those commits? There's still time.
>
> On 3 September 2016 at 01:12, Ralph Goers <ralph.goers@dslextreme.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Perhaps we shouldn’t have.
>>
>> Ralph
>>
>> On Sep 2, 2016, at 7:46 PM, Matt Sicker <boards@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> We've already removed several deprecated factories in this upcoming
>> release, though.
>>
>> On 2 September 2016 at 06:28, Mikael Ståldal <mikael.staldal@magine.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> I agree with Remko, let's keep them unless they are in the way. We can
>>> remove all of them in Log4j 3.0.
>>>
>>> On Fri, Sep 2, 2016 at 1:31 AM, Remko Popma <remko.popma@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> It was mentioned on a mailing list or twitter conversation with
>>>> maintainers of another Apache project that one of the reasons they hesitate
>>>> to migrate to Log4j is that they worry we will break binary compatibility.
>>>>
>>>> Removing the factory methods just because we deprecated them seems a
>>>> bit harsh.
>>>> It's not like it's a huge maintenance effort to keep them.
>>>>
>>>> I would not remove the deprecated factory methods unless they actively
>>>> prevent us from doing something we want to do.
>>>>
>>>> Remko
>>>> Sent from my iPhone
>>>>
>>>> On 2016/09/02, at 6:29, Ralph Goers <ralph.goers@dslextreme.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Well, Java seems to have a policy of waiting at least 10 years, if
>>>> ever….
>>>>
>>>> Seriously, I don’t think 1 minor release is enough as that might very
>>>> well be the next release.  I’d say 2 minor releases and at least 6 months.
>>>>
>>>> Ralph
>>>>
>>>> On Sep 1, 2016, at 1:42 PM, Matt Sicker <boards@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I think that when you add a builder and deprecate the factory, you
>>>> should remove it in the next 2.x release. Otherwise, deprecation has no
>>>> point if there's no version with the deprecation specified.
>>>>
>>>> On 1 September 2016 at 13:40, Gary Gregory <garydgregory@gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>
>>>>> When can we delete factory methods that are deprecated by builders?
>>>>>
>>>>> Gary
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> E-Mail: garydgregory@gmail.com | ggregory@apache.org
>>>>> <ggregory@apache.org>
>>>>> Java Persistence with Hibernate, Second Edition
>>>>> <http://www.manning.com/bauer3/>
>>>>> JUnit in Action, Second Edition <http://www.manning.com/tahchiev/>
>>>>> Spring Batch in Action <http://www.manning.com/templier/>
>>>>> Blog: http://garygregory.wordpress.com
>>>>> Home: http://garygregory.com/
>>>>> Tweet! http://twitter.com/GaryGregory
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Matt Sicker <boards@gmail.com>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> [image: MagineTV]
>>>
>>> *Mikael Ståldal*
>>> Senior software developer
>>>
>>> *Magine TV*
>>> mikael.staldal@magine.com
>>> Grev Turegatan 3  | 114 46 Stockholm, Sweden  |   www.magine.com
>>> <http://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.
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Matt Sicker <boards@gmail.com>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Matt Sicker <boards@gmail.com>
>

Mime
View raw message