[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       log4j-dev
Subject:    Re: Re: Made my first commit
From:       Ceki =?iso-8859-1?Q?G=FClc=FC?= <cgu () qos ! ch>
Date:       2001-06-20 18:04:38
[Download RAW message or body]

At 09:02 20.06.2001 -0700, Christopher Taylor wrote:
> I agree that we should probably move to Java 2 only in the future, but I
> could make two changes to my submission that would let us continue running
> under Java 1:
> 
> Change 1- Change the following code in VersionHelper to dynamically load the
> VersionHelper20 class.  This means that VersionHelper wouldn't have a direct
> dependency on VersionHelper20 (so the compiler won't try and automatically
> compile it).

That's pretty smart. Interestingly enough, similar suggestion in a totally different \
context came up just 15 minutes ago. See bug 2251 \
http://nagoya.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=2251 for details.
> Change 2 - Change the ANT build script to ignore VersionHelper20, and then
> add a conditional compile step if the java.version property is 1.2 or
> greater.

That's good too. 

> It's ugly, but we could still keep Java 1 compatibility.

> Let me know, and I'll make the change if needed.

I'm for the change. Thank you. Ceki

> -Chris
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Ceki Gülcü" <cgu@qos.ch>
> To: "LOG4J Developers Mailing List" <log4j-dev@jakarta.apache.org>
> Sent: Wednesday, June 20, 2001 5:01 AM
> Subject: Re: Re: Made my first commit
> 
> 
> At 01:11 20.06.2001 +0000, you wrote:
> > IMHO, the best option is to have an 'older' (eg 1.04) version of log4j
> available for download for all who prefer to use the JDK 1.1 and drop
> support for JDK 1.1 in the newer releases (log4j 1.1 and beyond).
> 
> There is mounting evidence that it is a step that needs to be taken. For
> example, JMX requries JDK 1.2. Dropping support for JDK 1.2 is a Rubicon.
> 
> It is also true that those wishing to use JDK 1.1 can do so by using log4j
> version 1.1.3. What do others think?
> 
> > Perhaps we should cast a vote at the log4j-user@jakarta.apache.org
> mailinglist and on our website?
> 
> We can certainly do that. Regards, Ceki
> 
> > Mathias
> > 
> > ------------------------
> > "LOG4J Developers Mailing List" <log4j-dev@jakarta.apache.org> wrote:
> > ------------------------
> > 
> > > Chris,
> > > 
> > > I am copying log4j-dev because this is of wider interest.  I am very happy
> > > to see your contribution which I am sure is the first in long series.
> > > 
> > > Since the changes you have made are pervasive, it makes it impossible for
> > > check if log4j compiles under JDK 1.1. The other JDK 1.2+ dependencies
> are
> > > isolated in few classes such that one can skip them when compiling under
> > > JDK 1.1. This can no longer be done with your changes.
> > > 
> > > It seems to me that at this point we are at crossroads. From this point
> on,
> > > we either abandon JDK 1.1 compatibility without ever looking back or we
> > > stick to JDK 1.1 compatibility. In the latter case your changes do not
> seem
> > > appropriate.
> > > 
> > > The third option is to develop two log4js, one having JDK 1.1
> compatibility
> > > and the other JDK 1.2 and above. The former could be a "log4j-tiny" that
> > > some users seem to want.
> > > 
> > > It might be that this JDK 1.1 is moot and no one actually uses it. We
> should
> > > consult with our user base. Your ideas/suggestion are welcome. Ceki
> > > 
> > > ps: BTW, as a committer, you should be subscribed to the
> > > log4j-cvs@jakarta.apache.org mailing list.
> > > 
> > > At 01:10 20.06.2001 -0700, you wrote:
> > > Ceki,
> > > 
> > > I committed the changes for the classloader VersionHelper, and I changed
> > > the code to use the System.getProperty("java.version") rather than the
> > > Class.forName("java.util.List") hack.
> > > 
> > > I tested the code both on Microsoft J++ and JDK 1.3.
> > > 
> > > -Chris
> > > 
> > > P.S. The only thing I *didn't* test was *building* the code under JDK 1.1.
> > > Is that a requirement?  Unless we make changes to the build scripts I'm
> > > pretty sure JDK 1.1 compilers will barf on the JDK 1.2 specific code in
> > > VersionHelper20.java.
> > > 
> > > --
> > > Ceki Gülcü
> > > 
> > > 
> > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: log4j-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
> > > For additional commands, e-mail: log4j-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
> > > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: log4j-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: log4j-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
> 
> --
> Ceki Gülcü
> 
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: log4j-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: log4j-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
> 
> 
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: log4j-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: log4j-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org

--
Ceki Gülcü


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


[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]