Inline. > -----Original Message----- > From: Craig R. McClanahan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Tuesday, January 29, 2002 11:46 AM > To: Jakarta Commons Developers List > Subject: RE: [Logging] [VOTE] Commons Logging 1.0 Release > > On Tue, 29 Jan 2002, Scott Sanders wrote: > > > Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2002 11:27:23 -0800 > > From: Scott Sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Reply-To: Jakarta Commons Developers List > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > To: Jakarta Commons Developers List <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > 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. > > > > If you read back through the COMMONS-DEV discussions, I'd say > that the commons logging API started out closer to Log4j than > it did to LogKit, and during the development sycle morphed > towards what was obviously a good idea :-).
I am looking into this now. I think that this is the proper impl, which is why the Avalon and commons are so close. > > I'm absolutely +1 on attribution, though, as long as its to > both of them. I would agree. Wasn't Ceki also involved when he created Log4jME? > > > 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. > > > > In particular, commons-logging *only* wants to be a facade > (rather than providing anything other than a basic System.out > logging implementation itself), where LogKit's white paper > explicitly describes the Avalon team's need to go beyond that. +1 Of course they are both influenced by Log4j AND Avalon. > > I'm glad there is more than one choice in logging frameworks > in the world, with differing feature sets and philosophies. > I just want to avoid having a Commons component that wants to > do logging (such as Digester or > BeanUtils) dictating to an application that it *must* use > exactly one of them, whether it wants to or not. That should > be the choice of the developer who is using the commons > components, or the sysadmin deploying the application into a > production environment already based on one of them. Yes. > > > I am -0 until I can see completely where Berin is coming from. > > > > Scott Sanders > > > > Craig > > > > > -----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: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]>
