At 00:51 21.06.2001 +1000, Peter Donald wrote:
>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.
>
>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.
Peter,
I should not have accused you of copying in a public forum. It was improper
and I sincerely apologize for that.
I regret to frequently read notes signed by you attacking log4j. I do not think one
can find a
single example, in public or in private, where I criticize LogKit, not one.
>> 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.
>
>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).
I daily receive emails for suggestions for improvements some of them are
good, some less and some I've forgotten about. As for your suggestions:
- Log4j supported configuration files since ages. We are planning to add a
management interface in log4j version 1.2. I don't see what you mean by
dynamic configuration and how it applies to taking away your ideas without
recognition.
- Although some fields have changed in LoggingEvent, its serialization has remained
the same as long as I can remember. Again, I do not see how this relates to the log4j
project copying your idea without giving recognition.
- Filters were suggested by many people not just you. I assume you do not want
recognition for this do you?
- The priority class is based on flyweights and has been so since I can remember.
- I distinctly remember your suggestion that the getChainedPriority and some other
methods in the Category class be final. However, this is not possible since they are
overridden in the RootCategory class which extends the Category class.
It is not that I have ignored this suggestion, it was just not possible to implement.
>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.
I am very interested in cooperation and exchange of ideas. I do not recall any
proposal for a common backend. I am not saying that you did not send it. I just have
not received it.
Would you have a copy of this proposal?
>> 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.
The logging API in JDK 1.4 is botched.
--
Ceki Gülcü
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
