logging-log4j-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jacob Kjome <h...@visi.com>
Subject RE: log4j 1.3 minimum JDK (was Re: [VOTE] Release log4j 1.2.12rc3)
Date Tue, 16 Aug 2005 18:26:29 GMT
Quoting Mark Womack <womack@adobe.com>:

> But is there some specific reason why we want to upgrade and be compatible
> with only >= JDK 1.3?  Is there some core class we really need to use in
> order to make log4j better?  If not, then I don't see a compelling reason to
> self-limit ourselves to >= JDK 1.3.  We are a logging framework, it just
> makes more sense to be as compatible as we can be, imo.  It is one of the
> pluses for log4j vs jdk 1.4 logging.
>

We still don't know if our current 1.2.xx releases are truly compatible with
JDK1.2 according to Curt's investigations, but we can all compile and test
under JDK1.3 quite easily.  The idea is nice, but even our promise of backward
compatiblity for the 1.2 branch up to now is turning out to be a possible
farce.  Suggested workarounds by Curt suggest is is not easy to provide this
support.  Like others have said, if people haven't upgraded the JVM from
1.2.xx, they certainly aren't of the mind to upgrade Log4j or anything else. 
JDK1.5 is out and 1.6 is in development.  It's time to put JDK1.2 to rest which
will allow us to make promises we can stand by!


Jake


> -Mark
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Yoav Shapira [mailto:yoavsh@MIT.EDU]
> > Sent: Monday, August 15, 2005 10:41 PM
> > To: 'Log4J Developers List'
> > Subject: RE: log4j 1.3 minimum JDK (was Re: [VOTE] Release log4j
> > 1.2.12rc3)
> >
> > Hola,
> > +1 on JDK 1.3.  It's more than five years old now.  If someone hasn't
> > updated their JVM in 5 years, they're not going to update log4j from
> > 1.2...
> >
> > Yoav Shapira
> > System Design and Management Fellow
> > MIT Sloan School of Management
> > Cambridge, MA USA
> > yoavs@computer.org / www.yoavshapira.com
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Curt Arnold [mailto:carnold@apache.org]
> > > Sent: Monday, August 15, 2005 9:32 PM
> > > To: Log4J Developers List
> > > 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
>




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


Mime
View raw message