Re: log4j 1.3 minimum JDK (was Re: [VOTE] Release log4j 1.2.12rc3)

[Jacob Kjome <ho...@visi.com>]

At 08:31 PM 8/15/2005 -0500, you wrote:
 >
 >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.
 >

+1 for JDK1.3 as a minimum for Log4j-1.3.  BTW, does SLF4J run under 
JDK1.2?  If so, Log4j wouldn't need to really think about dealing with 
J2ME.  Imagine a jar as large as Log4j being used for J2ME!  I think that's 
what Log4j Mini was for, but that hasn't been updated in ages.  If J2ME 
developers were to code to the SLF4J interfaces, then they could use any 
implementation.  For their code running in a big appserver, they could use 
Log4j.  For their code running in J2ME, they could use either the SLF4j 
simple logger or some other implementation designed with J2ME in mind.  I 
don't think J2ME should be much of a concern for Log4j other than making 
sure we implement the SLF4J interfaces (hopefully the api will stabilize at 
some point in the near future... aren't we glad we didn't vote Log4j-1.2.10 
as a stable release?  I am!).


Jake 


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

Re: log4j 1.3 minimum JDK (was Re: [VOTE] Release log4j 1.2.12rc3)

[Paul Smith <ps...@aconex.com>]

oh and here's my (obvious) +1 on JDK 1.3

On 16/08/2005, at 12:33 PM, Jacob Kjome wrote:

> At 08:31 PM 8/15/2005 -0500, you wrote:
> >
> >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.
> >
>
> +1 for JDK1.3 as a minimum for Log4j-1.3.  BTW, does SLF4J run  
> under JDK1.2?  If so, Log4j wouldn't need to really think about  
> dealing with J2ME.  Imagine a jar as large as Log4j being used for  
> J2ME!  I think that's what Log4j Mini was for, but that hasn't been  
> updated in ages.  If J2ME developers were to code to the SLF4J  
> interfaces, then they could use any implementation.  For their code  
> running in a big appserver, they could use Log4j.  For their code  
> running in J2ME, they could use either the SLF4j simple logger or  
> some other implementation designed with J2ME in mind.  I don't  
> think J2ME should be much of a concern for Log4j other than making  
> sure we implement the SLF4J interfaces (hopefully the api will  
> stabilize at some point in the near future... aren't we glad we  
> didn't vote Log4j-1.2.10 as a stable release?  I am!).
>
>
> Jake
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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