With this here is my +1 for the release as of now... Scott
> -----Original Message----- > From: Berin Loritsch [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Tuesday, January 29, 2002 2:05 PM > To: Jakarta Commons Developers List > Subject: Re: [Logging] [VOTE] Commons Logging 1.0 Release > > > Remy Maucherat wrote: > > >>> > >>However, if you guys tried to work with us from the outset, much of > >>this confusion would never have risen. > >> > > > > Maybe at that time we *didn't* want to work together for some very > > specific reasons. After all, the original commons proposal, which I > > was part of, was -1ed only by Peter, because we apparently had > > diverging opinions about how shared code should be > governed. Given the > > number of components in the commons, I think it has been quite > > successful with its goals, and it did abide by its basic principles > > (openness, bazaar style repository, extremely few external > > dependencies, no imposed coding style, etc etc). > > > Hmmm. Remy, I have to say this sounds quite petty. > > > > > I'm also greatly disturbed by the timing and the ferocity of your > > complaints. AFAIK, nobody here did invent the facade pattern or the > > Logger interface (or whatever you choose to call it). It > seems Rodney > > came up with something similar to LogKit by accident. > > > Timing maybe, ferocity? If you think that is ferocity, then > you haven't had any kind of debate yet. > > Seriously though, if I had known that this project was > started before we had our own Logger abstraction, I could > have championed the cause for Avalon. As it is now, we can't > very well go back and deprecate yet again what is supposed to > be a stable API. > > By choosing not to work with us openly, you have kept the > Avalon community from the benefits of your work. All for a > seemingly petty reason. I have dealt with Peter on a number > of occasions, and I really appreciate the guy. He is very > oppinionated, its true, but he *can* be convinced. You just > have to be persistent, and explain your thinking clearly. > > The "I 'tried' and gave up" attitude is bad. > > > > > Now, if all you want is some credit for "being there", then > so be it, > > you have it :) You just could have asked it a lot sooner > and in a lot > > nicer way. > > > Sooner, no. Nicer way, possibly. > > > > > Scott added that: "That is the past. This is the present, > and I WANT > > Avalon and commons to work in harmony, not dischord." Well, > maybe, but > > the present still reminds me of the past a lot :-( > Hopefully, that's > > the last time it happens. > > > Well, perhaps we can both get over ourselves and just move > on. I'm willing to burry the hatchet if you are. However, I > *don't* like when projects that can work together > disassociate because of petty reasons. If there are *real* > technical reasons, I can appreciate it. > > > -- > > "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:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
