On Fri, 29 Mar 2002 13:28, Vladimir Bossicard wrote:
god no. The avalon group was already using a facade logger long before
commons was for much the same reason commons adopted one.
Is Avalon still using its own facade logger or changed to commons-logging?
its own. The commons logger does
Wait a minute, I know you... You are the apricot
(http://sourceforge.net/projects/apricot/) guy. In the fairy tale The
Emperor's new clothes, what was the name of the child who calls
He's naked. The man in the crown is naked
Was it Vladimir Bossicard?
At 18:28 28.03.2002 -0800, you
+1 We have to be Pro Choice. For better or worse its part of the way things are done.
If there is to be one logging API it will emerge with least pain through natural
wasteage.
Abbot of Citeaux, leading the 13th Century crusade against the Albigensians thundered:
“Kill them all, God will know
The interesting case is of course measuring performance when logging is
turned off. Here is a little experiment.
My CLASSPATH:
CLASSPATH=.;/java/jdk1.3.1/jre/lib/rt.jar;/home/cgu/ASF/jakarta-log4j-1.2beta4/dist/lib/log4j-1.2beta4.jar;commons-logging-1.0/commons-logging.jar
I have written two
Morning,
I wrote:
I'm not qualified to put forward any suggestions
Sam replied:
I respectfully disagree.
Thanks Sam, I'll now bore you with my own opinion, and see if you change
your mind.. ;-)
I believe that there are two conflicting forces at work within Jakarta
regarding cross
Good point, except that the loop length was 100'000'000 so the cost of the
first 10'000 calls would be dwarfed by the remaining 99'990'000. Of course
there is also:
~/java Indirect 1
log4j: Parsing threshold string [WARN]
log4j: Could not find root logger information. Is this OK?
log4j:
Even less valuable opinions inline :)
Danny Angus [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 29/03/2002 10:08:45 PM:
I don't know how this helps to clarify the situation, but I expect a
Jakarta registry is probably required, and the ability for
sub-projects to
define their classpaths as part of their
On Fri, 29 Mar 2002 22:08, Danny Angus wrote:
This raises a couple of issues though..
a) it implies that there be an ant based installer for each application
participating in the scheme
Maybe not an ant based installer. However what it does need is something that
is equivelent to unixes
So where does that leave us?
Do you (Pete) believe that the work you're going to put into Ant2 and java versioning
can address this satisfactorily in a generic way?
What participation would it require from sub-projects wanting to adopt it?
Should, perhaps, Jakarta be using our hard fought
At 18:28 28.03.2002 -0800, you wrote:
god no. The avalon group was already using a facade logger long before
commons was for much the same reason commons adopted one.
Is Avalon still using its own facade logger or changed to commons-logging?
I'm just wondering: How many Jakarta projects use
-Original Message-
From: Pier Fumagalli [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, March 28, 2002 5:12 PM
To: Jakarta General List
Subject: Re: subproject layout conventions
Berin Loritsch [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Attached is a small screenshot of the maven page with a
Leo Simons wrote:
I very much agree. I was under the impression though that at this point,
there are some designers available somewhere. It would be good if they
would explain which things would be good to change so we can put that
into the system.
There is no paid staff, and AFAIK, no
On 3/28/02 5:14 PM, Ceki Gülcü [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Possible but I would not be that sure. We will have very strong new
features in log4j 1.3 (the release after 1.2) which will leave JDK 1.4
logging even further behind. Just as importantly, log4j documentation
is going to get a
On 3/29/02 8:26 AM, Berin Loritsch [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Pier Fumagalli [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, March 28, 2002 5:12 PM
To: Jakarta General List
Subject: Re: subproject layout conventions
Berin Loritsch [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
There was a discussion about an enterprise distribution of jakarta and
other open-source java technologies some time back on this list that
resulted in starting oed project on SourceForge [which is pretty much
dead at the moment :-( ].
Which may suggest that there's more to solving this
There is no paid staff, and AFAIK, no designers who are also
committers.
The maven layout looks like it has been designed by a designer.
except that the website is not only for geeks. It's also for people
that make decisions and have money.
Says who?
Me. I wan't to use jakarta stuff
Now that you can (well, soon) legally implement JSR47's, you
might was well
support their interfaces and semantics, and then 'embrace and
extend'. Just
do the JSR47 stuff better :)
Could Log4J now become an RI of JSR47 ? (I'm still not completely clear
about all this..)
--
To
On Sat, 30 Mar 2002 02:36, Danny Angus wrote:
Now that you can (well, soon) legally implement JSR47's, you
might was well
support their interfaces and semantics, and then 'embrace and
extend'. Just
do the JSR47 stuff better :)
Could Log4J now become an RI of JSR47 ? (I'm still not
On 3/29/02 10:36 AM, Danny Angus [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Now that you can (well, soon) legally implement JSR47's, you
might was well
support their interfaces and semantics, and then 'embrace and
extend'. Just
do the JSR47 stuff better :)
Could Log4J now become an RI of JSR47 ? (I'm
On 3/29/02 10:40 AM, Peter Donald [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sat, 30 Mar 2002 02:36, Danny Angus wrote:
Now that you can (well, soon) legally implement JSR47's, you
might was well
support their interfaces and semantics, and then 'embrace and
extend'. Just
do the JSR47 stuff better :)
-Original Message-
From: Geir Magnusson Jr. [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
On 3/29/02 8:26 AM, Berin Loritsch [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Pier Fumagalli [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Berin Loritsch [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Attached is a small
On Sat, 30 Mar 2002 02:48, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
On 3/29/02 10:40 AM, Peter Donald [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sat, 30 Mar 2002 02:36, Danny Angus wrote:
Now that you can (well, soon) legally implement JSR47's, you
might was well
support their interfaces and semantics, and then
There was a discussion about an enterprise distribution of jakarta and
other open-source java technologies some time back on this list that
resulted in starting oed project on SourceForge [which is pretty much
dead at the moment :-( ].
Which may
Danny Angus wrote:
There was a discussion about an enterprise distribution of jakarta and
other open-source java technologies some time back on this list that
resulted in starting oed project on SourceForge [which is pretty much
dead at the moment :-( ].
Which may suggest that there's more
It would be a real shame for the lack of an total automated
solution to lead
to the lack of a simple manual solution. If administrators can manually
check the explicit version of a JAR, rather than comparing
sizes/datestamps,
that would be a major improvement over today. Correctly version
On 3/29/02 11:05 AM, Peter Donald [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sat, 30 Mar 2002 02:48, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
On 3/29/02 10:40 AM, Peter Donald [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sat, 30 Mar 2002 02:36, Danny Angus wrote:
Now that you can (well, soon) legally implement JSR47's, you
might was
Leo Simons wrote:
As long as we agree that nothing should get into the way of site functionality (and
we do), why would you oppose a site that also is easy to navigate and looks good?
The only thing I oppose is the idea something being set in stone or
approved by some mythical designer.
Ainsi parlait Andrus Adamchik :
[..]
Task of a package creator is harder. (Here is a link with detailed
information : http://www.rpm.org/max-rpm/ ). In short (in reality it is
rather hard) package creators need to get sources, convert
configure-make-make install into a special RPM spec for a
I hear you. And I think I understand pretty well ;-). Therefore I was
looking at your project as an example how this should be done in Java
world.
Guillaume Rousse wrote:
Curiously in java world, packager work is generaly is at best
misunderstood, often ignored, or even seen with some
Hi,
(if this is getting too OT tell me to sling my hook)
I just printed and read the jdk 1.3 optional packages versioning document
(again) then found this ..
http://java.sun.com/j2se/1.4/docs/guide/plugin/developer_guide/extensions.ht
ml the section on Java Extensions Installation made
At 15:36 29.03.2002 +, Danny Angus wrote:
Now that you can (well, soon) legally implement JSR47's, you
might was well
support their interfaces and semantics, and then 'embrace and
extend'. Just
do the JSR47 stuff better :)
Could Log4J now become an RI of JSR47 ? (I'm still not
31 matches
Mail list logo
