You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to log4j-dev@logging.apache.org by Mark Womack <mw...@apache.org> on 2006/02/23 18:28:31 UTC
[POLL] Base JDK version support for log4j 1.3?
We have talked about this before, and I plan to poll the user list,
but I thought we could talk about it some more here first.
What base JDK version do we want to support for log4j 1.3? > JDK 1.2?
> JDK 1.3?
Cons:
- not as universal of an option for logging
Pros:
- can use more modern, builtin classes (like Scheduler) instead of
growing our own
- less testing and build maintenance
others?
comments?
-Mark
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: log4j-dev-unsubscribe@logging.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: log4j-dev-help@logging.apache.org
Re: [POLL] Base JDK version support for log4j 1.3?
Posted by Boris Unckel <bo...@gmx.net>.
Hello,
Endre Stølsvik wrote:
> What is there in 1.4?! Unless you do heavy concurrent I/O, I haven't seen
> anything that Java 1.4 supplies that isn't just "plain java"?
to get this all together:
There are a few dimensions for/against a special JDK Version:
1a) User base argumentation: How many people are running their
application with log4j and a JDK special version (percentage)?
1b) How many percent of the users with the oldest supported JDK version
must be there to say this has support worth?
1c) User migration argumentation: How many people will use a newer log4j
version and still stay at an older JDK version?
2) Feature argumentation: How many features are in JDK 1.2, 1.3, 1.4
which are useful/necessary for log4j 1.3
and still make it possible to switch from log4j 1.2.x to 1.3 without
changing application code (the compatibility issue)?
3) How long should an external API support "End-of-Life" systems? (Even
JDK 1.4.0 and 1.4.1 have the EOL sign,
see http://java.sun.com/downloads/ in the combo box).
There should be a formal vote for this kind of decisions with an summary
of the argumentations. There are conservative notes
in this thread (-> JDK 1.2.x) and there are more progressive sounds (->
JDK 1.3, 1.4 even 1.5). Both have good arguments.
Regards
Boris
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: log4j-dev-unsubscribe@logging.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: log4j-dev-help@logging.apache.org
Re: [POLL] Base JDK version support for log4j 1.3?
Posted by Endre Stølsvik <En...@Stolsvik.com>.
On Fri, 24 Feb 2006, Jess Holle wrote:
|
| Unless, of course, requiring 1.4 means one can assume a better ThreadLocal and
| use it more freely, for instance. [I know ThreadLocal improved over the
| various JVM releases, but I don't know whether those improvements went back
| into old JVM's maintenance releases.]
The new (fast) ThreadLocal has been around since 1.4, iiuc.
However, using actual ThreadLocal objects has as far as I understand
always been better than "doing it yourself" as log4j does, since it is
supposed to clean up after itself - and it magically improves for each
java version, while synched-maps really don't (see NDC).
Here's the "threadlocal leaks plug" once more (it's interesting):
http://www.jroller.com/page/tackline?entry=fixing_threadlocal
Sun bug db entry by, I assume, the same guy ("tackline"):
http://bugs.sun.com/bugdatabase/view_bug.do?bug_id=6254531
(vote for it - it hurts all webapp developers!)
Regards,
Endre.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: log4j-dev-unsubscribe@logging.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: log4j-dev-help@logging.apache.org
Re: [POLL] Base JDK version support for log4j 1.3?
Posted by Jess Holle <je...@ptc.com>.
The only bits I can think of in 1.4 over 1.3 are:
* Assertions
* NIO
Otherwise that's really about it. Sure, 1.4 integrates JSSE, JAXP, and
JNDI into the core, but there are add-on libraries for 1.3 for all the
same stuff.
I believe NIO has not been all it's cracked up to be in many usages and
would be surprised to find it critical to logging.
Unless, of course, requiring 1.4 means one can assume a better
ThreadLocal and use it more freely, for instance. [I know ThreadLocal
improved over the various JVM releases, but I don't know whether those
improvements went back into old JVM's maintenance releases.]
--
Jess Holle
Endre Stølsvik wrote:
> On Thu, 23 Feb 2006, Boris Unckel wrote:
>
> | Mark Womack wrote:
> | > What base JDK version do we want to support for log4j 1.3? > JDK 1.2?
> | > > JDK 1.3?
> | +1 for version >= JDK 1.3
> | with javac set to source 1.3 and target 1.3
> |
> | Reasons:
> | - JDK 1.2 legacy(!) users have log4j 1.2.13, stable, extensible
> | - slow adoption of new JDKs is already fulfilled, we are at JDK 1.5stable and
> | 1.6beta
> |
> | Personally I would prefer source 1.4 and target 1.4
>
> What is there in 1.4?! Unless you do heavy concurrent I/O, I haven't seen
> anything that Java 1.4 supplies that isn't just "plain java"?
>
> Regards,
> Endre.
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: log4j-dev-unsubscribe@logging.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: log4j-dev-help@logging.apache.org
Re: [POLL] Base JDK version support for log4j 1.3?
Posted by Endre Stølsvik <En...@Stolsvik.com>.
On Thu, 23 Feb 2006, Boris Unckel wrote:
| Mark Womack wrote:
| > What base JDK version do we want to support for log4j 1.3? > JDK 1.2?
| > > JDK 1.3?
| +1 for version >= JDK 1.3
| with javac set to source 1.3 and target 1.3
|
| Reasons:
| - JDK 1.2 legacy(!) users have log4j 1.2.13, stable, extensible
| - slow adoption of new JDKs is already fulfilled, we are at JDK 1.5stable and
| 1.6beta
|
| Personally I would prefer source 1.4 and target 1.4
What is there in 1.4?! Unless you do heavy concurrent I/O, I haven't seen
anything that Java 1.4 supplies that isn't just "plain java"?
Regards,
Endre.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: log4j-dev-unsubscribe@logging.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: log4j-dev-help@logging.apache.org
Re: [POLL] Base JDK version support for log4j 1.3?
Posted by Boris Unckel <bo...@gmx.net>.
Mark Womack wrote:
> What base JDK version do we want to support for log4j 1.3? > JDK 1.2?
> > JDK 1.3?
+1 for version >= JDK 1.3
with javac set to source 1.3 and target 1.3
Reasons:
- JDK 1.2 legacy(!) users have log4j 1.2.13, stable, extensible
- slow adoption of new JDKs is already fulfilled, we are at JDK
1.5stable and 1.6beta
Personally I would prefer source 1.4 and target 1.4
Regards
Boris
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: log4j-dev-unsubscribe@logging.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: log4j-dev-help@logging.apache.org
Re: [POLL] Base JDK version support for log4j 1.3?
Posted by Boris Unckel <bo...@gmx.net>.
Good evening,
David J. M. Karlsen wrote:
> Some of the vendors are behind - WebSphere v6 (latest available) is at
> JDK1.3.
> I really don't see any reason to make the l4j 1.4 target - if it does
> - we'll have some problems - and probably leave l4j for good.
>
WebSphere v5.0 was at JDK 1.3
WebSphere v5.1 was at JDK 1.4
WebSphere v6.? is at JDK 1.4
See:
http://www-128.ibm.com/developerworks/websphere/library/techarticles/0402_berg/0402_berg.html
and search for "Compatible server targets" in the page.
That was the first hit on google.de for "WebSphere JDK version"
Regards
Boris
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: log4j-dev-unsubscribe@logging.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: log4j-dev-help@logging.apache.org
Re: [POLL] Base JDK version support for log4j 1.3?
Posted by Yoav Shapira <yo...@apache.org>.
Hola,
> Some of the vendors are behind - WebSphere v6 (latest available) is at
> JDK1.3.
I don't think so. Even later versions of WebSphere 5.x support JDK
1.4. See for example:
http://www.websphere-world.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=1164.
The argument for supporting older JDKs is not about vendor adoption.
Every vendor worth their name will have Tiger (J2SE 5.0) support very
soon because they J2EE 1.5 spec requires it.
I think a better argument for supporting older JDKs can be made in
light of the competition from java.util.logging (JUL). JUL became
available with Sun JDK 1.4 and for many users offers everything they
need. To remain the top option in the future, log4j must either offer
unique features (for example the plugin/receiver framework) or support
a broader subset of JDKs. By that I don't just mean older ones, but
also less traditional ones like GNU Classpath, Kaffe, and Apache
Harmony as it gets closer to prime time.
Unfortunately we've now spent many months essentially assuring that
log4j 1.3 is fully backwards-compatible instead of focusing on new and
innovative features. This compatibility is a noble goal, but I think
we're at a crossing point where we need to decide where to focus.
I strongly stress that I'm not criticizing anyone: what the project
does reflects the interests of our members, as always. I'll be the
first to admit that I've contributed very little to log4j this past
year and change, and I wish I had more time to write some cool new
code for 2.0. I think the people working on backwards comptability
have done a great job, and Mark has done an awesome job keeping us in
check. But I wish we would step back for a second and look at what
would make log4j the top logging choice not just now, but for a couple
of years in the future, given what we know about J2EE 1.5, the JVMPI /
JVMDI improvements in Tiger, and other similar opportunities to put
together new differentiating features, like loggers and appenders once
were...
Yoav
--
Yoav Shapira
Senior Architect
Nimalex LLC
1 Mifflin Place, Suite 310
Cambridge, MA, USA
yoavs@computer.org / www.yoavshapira.com
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: log4j-dev-unsubscribe@logging.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: log4j-dev-help@logging.apache.org
Re: [POLL] Base JDK version support for log4j 1.3?
Posted by "David J. M. Karlsen" <da...@davidkarlsen.com>.
Andreas Fester wrote:
> Mark Womack wrote:
>
>> We have talked about this before, and I plan to poll the user list,
>> but I thought we could talk about it some more here first.
>>
>> What base JDK version do we want to support for log4j 1.3? > JDK 1.2?
>> > JDK 1.3?
>>
>
> I do not see any reason to support 1.2 anymore. 1.3 would be reasonable,
> but I would even say 1.4 should be sufficient, given that 1.5/5.0 is
> now available on all major platforms (including AIX ;-)) and 1.6/6.0 is
> in beta stage...
>
Some of the vendors are behind - WebSphere v6 (latest available) is at
JDK1.3.
I really don't see any reason to make the l4j 1.4 target - if it does -
we'll have some problems - and probably leave l4j for good.
--
David J. M. Karlsen - +47 90 68 22 43
http://www.davidkarlsen.com
http://mp3.davidkarlsen.com
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: log4j-dev-unsubscribe@logging.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: log4j-dev-help@logging.apache.org
Re: [POLL] Base JDK version support for log4j 1.3?
Posted by Andreas Fester <af...@apache.org>.
Mark Womack wrote:
> We have talked about this before, and I plan to poll the user list,
> but I thought we could talk about it some more here first.
>
> What base JDK version do we want to support for log4j 1.3? > JDK 1.2?
> > JDK 1.3?
I do not see any reason to support 1.2 anymore. 1.3 would be reasonable,
but I would even say 1.4 should be sufficient, given that 1.5/5.0 is
now available on all major platforms (including AIX ;-)) and 1.6/6.0 is
in beta stage...
Regards,
Andreas
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: log4j-dev-unsubscribe@logging.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: log4j-dev-help@logging.apache.org
Re: [POLL] Base JDK version support for log4j 1.3?
Posted by Elias Ross <er...@m-qube.com>.
On Thu, 2006-02-23 at 11:31 -0600, Jess Holle wrote:
> I'd be fine with requiring Java 5 for log4j 1.3 and using the best
> concurrency, etc, utilities it has to offer.
Ah, "concurrency" -- my favorite Log4j word... I can't really see what
Java 5 would provide in terms of better concurrency other than
standardized lock classes.
However, if you wanted, you could write your library as 1.5 then make it
run on 1.4:
http://retroweaver.sourceforge.net/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: log4j-dev-unsubscribe@logging.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: log4j-dev-help@logging.apache.org
Re: [POLL] Base JDK version support for log4j 1.3?
Posted by Mark Womack <mw...@apache.org>.
Part of the equation is also the web application servers like JBoss,
etc. They are all on 1.5/5 now, but they weren't for a while there.
-Mark
On 2/23/06, Jess Holle <je...@ptc.com> wrote:
> The real question is how many people will not upgrade to the latest
> stable JVM yet want to upgrade to the latest (currently unstable) log4j.
>
> By the time log4j 1.3 is released, I'm guessing Java 6 will be stable,
> making the question "how many won't upgrade to at least the version
> prior to latest yet want the latest log4j?"
>
> Boris Unckel wrote:
> > Jess Holle wrote:
> >> I'm sure I'm in the minority here, but 1.2.13 seems fine for "legacy"
> >> versions of Java, i.e. everything prior to Java 5.
> >>
> >> I'd be fine with requiring Java 5 for log4j 1.3 and using the best
> >> concurrency, etc, utilities it has to offer.
> > Does Java5 have this market share? For technical reasons I would
> > prefer always the latest stable version, but for a user
> > base mainly working with one release before...
> >
> > Regards
> > Boris
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > 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
Re: [POLL] Base JDK version support for log4j 1.3?
Posted by Jess Holle <je...@ptc.com>.
The real question is how many people will not upgrade to the latest
stable JVM yet want to upgrade to the latest (currently unstable) log4j.
By the time log4j 1.3 is released, I'm guessing Java 6 will be stable,
making the question "how many won't upgrade to at least the version
prior to latest yet want the latest log4j?"
Boris Unckel wrote:
> Jess Holle wrote:
>> I'm sure I'm in the minority here, but 1.2.13 seems fine for "legacy"
>> versions of Java, i.e. everything prior to Java 5.
>>
>> I'd be fine with requiring Java 5 for log4j 1.3 and using the best
>> concurrency, etc, utilities it has to offer.
> Does Java5 have this market share? For technical reasons I would
> prefer always the latest stable version, but for a user
> base mainly working with one release before...
>
> Regards
> Boris
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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
Re: [POLL] Base JDK version support for log4j 1.3?
Posted by Boris Unckel <bo...@gmx.net>.
Jess Holle wrote:
> I'm sure I'm in the minority here, but 1.2.13 seems fine for "legacy"
> versions of Java, i.e. everything prior to Java 5.
>
> I'd be fine with requiring Java 5 for log4j 1.3 and using the best
> concurrency, etc, utilities it has to offer.
Does Java5 have this market share? For technical reasons I would prefer
always the latest stable version, but for a user
base mainly working with one release before...
Regards
Boris
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: log4j-dev-unsubscribe@logging.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: log4j-dev-help@logging.apache.org
Re: [POLL] Base JDK version support for log4j 1.3?
Posted by Paul Smith <ps...@aconex.com>.
I'd be happy with JDK 1.4 for log4j 1.3, and go 1.5 for log4j 2?
Paul
On 24/02/2006, at 10:17 AM, Mark Womack wrote:
> I mentioned the Scheduler specifically, but we can start using more of
> the "recent" standard jdk classes. I think that is a plus. And we
> are focusing on backwards compatibility with our own api.
>
> -Mark
>
> On 2/23/06, Yoav Shapira <yo...@apache.org> wrote:
>> Hola,
>> Since 1.3 is so focused on backwards-compatibility, why even change
>> the JDK version? OTOH, log4j 2.0, which will hopefully be free to do
>> more fun stuff, should be Java5 IMHO...
>>
>> Yoav
>>
>> On 2/23/06, Curt Arnold <ca...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Feb 23, 2006, at 11:31 AM, Jess Holle wrote:
>>>
>>>> I'm sure I'm in the minority here, but 1.2.13 seems fine for
>>>> "legacy" versions of Java, i.e. everything prior to Java 5.
>>>>
>>>> I'd be fine with requiring Java 5 for log4j 1.3 and using the best
>>>> concurrency, etc, utilities it has to offer.
>>>
>>>
>>> It would be difficult, at least, to retain compatibility with log4j
>>> 1.2 and migrate to use of JDK 1.5 concurrency. Minimizing and
>>> reworking concurrency concerns is a log4j 2.0 issue and that would
>>> seem to be the time to jump to JDK 1.5 in my opinion.
>>>
>>> JDK 1.3 seems to be a reasonable target to me. To support JDK
>>> 1.4 as
>>> a target, there would have to be some specific benefit identified.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> -
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: log4j-dev-unsubscribe@logging.apache.org
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: log4j-dev-help@logging.apache.org
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Yoav Shapira
>> System Design and Management Fellow
>> MIT Sloan School of Management
>> Cambridge, MA, USA
>> yoavs@computer.org / www.yoavshapira.com
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> 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
Re: [POLL] Base JDK version support for log4j 1.3?
Posted by Mark Womack <mw...@apache.org>.
I mentioned the Scheduler specifically, but we can start using more of
the "recent" standard jdk classes. I think that is a plus. And we
are focusing on backwards compatibility with our own api.
-Mark
On 2/23/06, Yoav Shapira <yo...@apache.org> wrote:
> Hola,
> Since 1.3 is so focused on backwards-compatibility, why even change
> the JDK version? OTOH, log4j 2.0, which will hopefully be free to do
> more fun stuff, should be Java5 IMHO...
>
> Yoav
>
> On 2/23/06, Curt Arnold <ca...@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> > On Feb 23, 2006, at 11:31 AM, Jess Holle wrote:
> >
> > > I'm sure I'm in the minority here, but 1.2.13 seems fine for
> > > "legacy" versions of Java, i.e. everything prior to Java 5.
> > >
> > > I'd be fine with requiring Java 5 for log4j 1.3 and using the best
> > > concurrency, etc, utilities it has to offer.
> >
> >
> > It would be difficult, at least, to retain compatibility with log4j
> > 1.2 and migrate to use of JDK 1.5 concurrency. Minimizing and
> > reworking concurrency concerns is a log4j 2.0 issue and that would
> > seem to be the time to jump to JDK 1.5 in my opinion.
> >
> > JDK 1.3 seems to be a reasonable target to me. To support JDK 1.4 as
> > a target, there would have to be some specific benefit identified.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: log4j-dev-unsubscribe@logging.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: log4j-dev-help@logging.apache.org
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> Yoav Shapira
> System Design and Management Fellow
> MIT Sloan School of Management
> Cambridge, MA, USA
> yoavs@computer.org / www.yoavshapira.com
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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
Re: [POLL] Base JDK version support for log4j 1.3?
Posted by Endre Stølsvik <En...@Stolsvik.com>.
On Thu, 23 Feb 2006, Yoav Shapira wrote:
| Hola,
| Since 1.3 is so focused on backwards-compatibility, why even change
| the JDK version? OTOH, log4j 2.0, which will hopefully be free to do
| more fun stuff, should be Java5 IMHO...
I totally agree.
Regards,
Endre.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: log4j-dev-unsubscribe@logging.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: log4j-dev-help@logging.apache.org
Re: [POLL] Base JDK version support for log4j 1.3?
Posted by Yoav Shapira <yo...@apache.org>.
Hola,
Since 1.3 is so focused on backwards-compatibility, why even change
the JDK version? OTOH, log4j 2.0, which will hopefully be free to do
more fun stuff, should be Java5 IMHO...
Yoav
On 2/23/06, Curt Arnold <ca...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> On Feb 23, 2006, at 11:31 AM, Jess Holle wrote:
>
> > I'm sure I'm in the minority here, but 1.2.13 seems fine for
> > "legacy" versions of Java, i.e. everything prior to Java 5.
> >
> > I'd be fine with requiring Java 5 for log4j 1.3 and using the best
> > concurrency, etc, utilities it has to offer.
>
>
> It would be difficult, at least, to retain compatibility with log4j
> 1.2 and migrate to use of JDK 1.5 concurrency. Minimizing and
> reworking concurrency concerns is a log4j 2.0 issue and that would
> seem to be the time to jump to JDK 1.5 in my opinion.
>
> JDK 1.3 seems to be a reasonable target to me. To support JDK 1.4 as
> a target, there would have to be some specific benefit identified.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: log4j-dev-unsubscribe@logging.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: log4j-dev-help@logging.apache.org
>
>
--
Yoav Shapira
System Design and Management Fellow
MIT Sloan School of Management
Cambridge, MA, USA
yoavs@computer.org / www.yoavshapira.com
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: log4j-dev-unsubscribe@logging.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: log4j-dev-help@logging.apache.org
Re: [POLL] Base JDK version support for log4j 1.3?
Posted by Curt Arnold <ca...@apache.org>.
On Feb 23, 2006, at 11:31 AM, Jess Holle wrote:
> I'm sure I'm in the minority here, but 1.2.13 seems fine for
> "legacy" versions of Java, i.e. everything prior to Java 5.
>
> I'd be fine with requiring Java 5 for log4j 1.3 and using the best
> concurrency, etc, utilities it has to offer.
It would be difficult, at least, to retain compatibility with log4j
1.2 and migrate to use of JDK 1.5 concurrency. Minimizing and
reworking concurrency concerns is a log4j 2.0 issue and that would
seem to be the time to jump to JDK 1.5 in my opinion.
JDK 1.3 seems to be a reasonable target to me. To support JDK 1.4 as
a target, there would have to be some specific benefit identified.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: log4j-dev-unsubscribe@logging.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: log4j-dev-help@logging.apache.org
Re: [POLL] Base JDK version support for log4j 1.3?
Posted by Jess Holle <je...@ptc.com>.
I'm sure I'm in the minority here, but 1.2.13 seems fine for "legacy"
versions of Java, i.e. everything prior to Java 5.
I'd be fine with requiring Java 5 for log4j 1.3 and using the best
concurrency, etc, utilities it has to offer.
--
Jess Holle
Mark Womack wrote:
> We have talked about this before, and I plan to poll the user list,
> but I thought we could talk about it some more here first.
>
> What base JDK version do we want to support for log4j 1.3? > JDK 1.2?
> > JDK 1.3?
>
> Cons:
> - not as universal of an option for logging
>
> Pros:
> - can use more modern, builtin classes (like Scheduler) instead of
> growing our own
> - less testing and build maintenance
>
> others?
>
> comments?
> -Mark
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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