At 09:13 20.06.2001 -0400, Berin Loritsch wrote:
>I read the whole discussion, and the bickering was fruitless.
>Let me help in the discussion a little bit.
>
>Ceki,
>
>Please read the information on Inversion of Control (IOC) on the Avalon site.
>This will help you understand the importance of children not getting reference
>to parents. A point I make in my whitepaper (soon to be published on Avalon's
>site) is that IOC != security. It is important to note that IOC is a tool to
>achieve security. It helps to reduce the likelihood of a Masquerading attack.
>Part of security is knowing without a doubt the identity of the entities in a
>system. Part of security is making access to some information simply impossible.
>When Peter is talking about a higher security--by design--he is referring to this
>principle that is used throughout all the Avalon projects.
I have just finished IOC as published under
http://jakarta.apache.org/avalon/framework/inversion-of-control.html
As I understood it, Peter was complaining that in log4j children categories hold
references to their parents, whereas in LogKit parents hold references to their
children.
In log4j as well as LogKit, anybody who has a handle to a hierarchy can get a logger.
This has nothing to do with parent references to children. (Most log4j users
unknowingly use the default hierarchy which is always available.)
Thus, even if log4j changed the way parents and children related, this would not
change the ability of the user to get any the logger it wants.
>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.
>
>
>Both of you,
>
>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.
>
>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.
The log4j project does not need a new interface. What we need is talented developers
who can meet the needs of our users, like coding a management interface, improved
documentation, a configuration editor, a more powerful PatternLayout, more test cases,
code reviews etc.
Regards, Ceki
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
