Actually, on second thought, I am going to -1 for a while. I want to make the Avalon/Commons relationship better, not worse. I want to hear them out. I will change my vote after that.
Scott > -----Original Message----- > From: Scott Sanders > Sent: Tuesday, January 29, 2002 11:27 AM > To: Jakarta Commons Developers List > Subject: RE: [Logging] [VOTE] Commons Logging 1.0 Release > > > Berin, I think that I understand how you feel, and although > the abstraction was implemented outside of Avalon, I do > believe that Avalon should be attributed in some way, because > it ended up being so close. > > What can we do to make this better? The biggest difference > that I see is that commons-logging is trying to be super > small. I want to talk this out before I give my +1 on the > release. I am willing to try and make this better. > > I am -0 until I can see completely where Berin is coming from. > > Scott Sanders > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Berin Loritsch [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > Sent: Tuesday, January 29, 2002 11:28 AM > > To: Jakarta Commons Developers List > > Subject: Re: [Logging] [VOTE] Commons Logging 1.0 Release > > > > > > Craig R. McClanahan wrote: > > > > > We've refined the commons-logging APIs, and documented the > > mechanics. > > > In addition, I've heard from numerous people on various > > projects that > > > would like to use these APIs, but are hesitant to do so > > without a 1.0 > > > release. > > > > > > Therefore, I'd like to now propose that we do a 1.0 release of the > > > commons-logging package, based on the current contents of the CVS > > > repository for this package. I will volunteer to act as release > > > manager, following the standard process for Commons packages: > > > > > > http://jakarta.apache.org/commons/releases.html > > > > > > ----- CUT HERE ----- > > > [ ] +1 I support the release of Commons Logging 1.0 and > > will help [ ] > > > +0 I support the release, but cannot help [ ] -0 I am not > > in favor > > > of the release [ ] -1 I am opposed to this release, and > here's why > > > (attach reasons) > > > ----- CUT HERE ----- > > > > > > -1 > > > > > > How many logger abstractions do we need? Avalon has a > > perfectly good one. (I am not a committer on commons though...). > > > > It looks like a direct rip off of the Avalon logger > > abstraction, and despite the work that Peter Donald and I put > > into it, we get no mention. > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > "They that give up essential liberty to obtain a little > > temporary safety > > deserve neither liberty nor safety." > > - Benjamin Franklin > > > > > > -- > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: > > <mailto:commons-dev-> [EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > For > > additional commands, > > e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > > > -- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: > <mailto:commons-dev-> [EMAIL PROTECTED]> > For > additional commands, > e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
