logging-log4j-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Scott Deboy <scott.de...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Compiler configuration
Date Mon, 15 Aug 2011 16:53:11 GMT
One point of interest: I've been working on changes to make log4j and the
extras companions build and run on Personal Basis Profile 1.1, which is
almost Java 1.4.  There were a few minor changes, replacing JavaBeans
introspection with reflection was the main issue.

Since the changes I made were compatible, it may make sense to contribute
them back, possibly in a branch, as a new version of log4j-mini.

Scott


On Mon, Aug 15, 2011 at 7:14 AM, Ralph Goers <ralph.goers@dslextreme.com>wrote:

> I used a lot of what was in extras but I haven't looked at the other stuff.
>  If there is stuff that warrants being brought forward I see no reason not
> to.
>
> I think it makes sense for log4j 1.x and companions to be in synch.
>
> Ralph
>
> On Aug 15, 2011, at 6:59 AM, Christian Grobmeier wrote:
>
> >> No matter what you do log4j looks really decaying. :-)   That is one
> reason I am working on 2.0.  It targets 1.5 and actually makes use of
> features at that JDK level.
> >>
> >> Log4j 1.x is getting almost no attention these days. I wouldn't
> recommend changing the source and target levels. I can't speak to adding or
> removing UTF-8 as I'm not sure what that means.
> >
> > Am I right with my assumption that the companions will become obsolete
> > with Log4j 2.0?
> > If yes, I would like to change the companions configuration to the
> > current log4j configuration
> >
> > Cheers
> >
> >
> >>
> >> Ralph
> >>
> >> On Aug 15, 2011, at 3:57 AM, Christian Grobmeier wrote:
> >>
> >>> For log4j it is:
> >>> <source>1.3</source>
> >>> <target>1.1</target>
> >>>
> >>> For companions component, receivers and extras:
> >>> <source>1.4</source>
> >>> <target>1.4</target>
> >>> <encoding>UTF-8</encoding>
> >>>
> >>> This is true for the maven  pom, but not for the build.xml which uses
> >>> 1.2 and 1.1 (which is scary btw)
> >>>
> >>> For the unreleased zeroconf:
> >>> <source>1.2</source>
> >>> <target>1.1</target>
> >>>
> >>> Does it make sense to have different compiler configurations for add
> >>> ons to the original log4j?
> >>>
> >>> For sake of compatiblity, we can do the following:
> >>>
> >>> #1: use 1.4 for all, including log4j. 1.3 is really ancient
> >>> #2: use 1.5 for all, including log4j, because even 1.4 is long time
> dead
> >>> #3: leave log4j as it is, use the same configuration for companions
> >>> (and remove UTF-8)
> >>> #4: do #4, but include UTf-8 to log4j build
> >>>
> >>> To be honest, I am all for #2. I know, bc and such, but targeting for
> >>> 1.1 makes log4j really look decaying. I would agree to #4, if #2 does
> >>> not find friends.
> >>>
> >>> Your thoughts?
> >>>
> >>> Cheers
> >>> Christian
> >>>
> >>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>> 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
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > http://www.grobmeier.de
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > 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