A coupole of questions for Pete in-line ..
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Peter Donald [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Wednesday, 20 June, 2001 16:51
> To: Avalon Development
> Subject: Re: LogKit and Log4J Discussion
>
>
> On Wed, 20 Jun 2001 23:13, Berin Loritsch wrote:
> > Peter,
> >
> > LogKit is your baby, and you are very protective of it.
> > However, some of your areguments come off as if they are from
> > left field. An example is:
> >
> > "If however you are not accusing me of stealing ideas but instead of
> > violating copyright then that is another thing altogether. I
> > would like to see substantiated evidence that this has been the case
> > for I do not apreciate slander."
> >
> > Ceki's comments were not meant as slander. Even I can read that much.
I agreed.
> Slander is generally defined as spreading of untrue statements to
> damage a persons reputation. "In the process, you have copied from log4j
> without contributing back. I do not think this honors you. We innovate,
> you copy." is false and Ceki is aware of this. It's intent is to damage
> reputation. How can it not be slander?
>
> Perhaps it is just because I am starting to get sick of this kind of
> behaviour. Ceki is not the only apache member who believes slander is a
> justified means to achieve an end. I used to believe that people
> were honest here and it was one of the reasons I was happy to be involved
> with Apache.
> The longer I am here the more petty, childish, dishonest behaviour I see
> exhibited - often by leads. One thing I can't stand is dishonesty
> and I don't think it is ever acceptable in a forum like this.
>
> > We should not be enemies. Both of you are very protective of
> > your babies.
> > This is good. However, if both of these projects are going to
> > exist under the same umbrella--Apache--then there needs to be some
> > symbiance between them. Honestly, I like Logkit because it is IMO
> > easy to use, and packaged with Avalon. LogKit was part of Avalon before
> > Log4J was part of Apache. I admit, I have not used Log4J due to the
fact
> > LogKit meets my needs. I also recognise that there are thousands of
> > developers with the opposite view--that they like Log4J because it meets
> > their needs and have no desire to switch.
Things are spinning in a direction that makes the above point important. My
experience/preferences are very similar to Berin's .. LogKit does most of
what I want, doesn't cause any pain, and because its bundled its the logging
framework we are using. But Log4J has a log more mindshare and its creeping
into our work - other activities we are involved with are using Log4J and
with the emergence of a logging service in the JRE the pot just gets more
complicated.
> I would have loved to have dropped LogKit ages ago. Less code is
> generally the better. If you look back at the archives (I think this list
> was cced) I was looking forward for Log4j coming to Apache and being
> involved in it. With initial proposal I looked at it and made some
> comments (lacked dynamic configuration, serialized early, lacked filters,
> had some methods that should have been final, used unsafe type enums,
etc).
> A bit later I think I also forwarded a release log when Ceki implemented
> most of these features (there are still methods that should be final).
>
> However trying to get him to change anything else was impossible. Then I
> attempted to encourage to join together and do a "revolution".
> Both LogKit and Log4j have errors in them and we could eliminate them - he
> refused. Then I tried to get him to at least to agree on common backend
> (ie Appenders, Events etc) - he never replied. The only reason that LogKit
> remains is because Log4j is unsuitable for our use - and Ceki was not
> interested in cooperating to fix it.
Pete ... this is the first of two points I would appreciate additional
information on. Can you summarise the specific reasons why Log4j is
unsuitable for our use?
> > What I would like to see in the near future is a Logger
> > interface that both projects can aggree to so that people who develop
> > in Avalon can use their logger of choice. If JDK 1.4 supplies such an
> > interface it might be worth investigating.
>
> Never happen - not technically viable.
If this is really the case, then what we are saying is that anyone using
Avalon *must* live with possibly multiple logging frameworks and that it
is not possible to abstract out a common interface. Which leads to my
second request .. can you summarise the reasons behind your "not technically
viable" conclusion?
Cheers, Steve.
> Cheers,
>
> Pete
>
> *-----------------------------------------------------*
> | "Faced with the choice between changing one's mind, |
> | and proving that there is no need to do so - almost |
> | everyone gets busy on the proof." |
> | - John Kenneth Galbraith |
> *-----------------------------------------------------*
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
