> I don't want any credit for anything related to logging. I want people > who originated the ideas get credit for it. And I learned quite a bunch > of what I know about logging from Ceki.
I already noticed that Ceki and Peter look at each other's work... ...which is a Good Thing (TM). =:o) You find a lot of common ideas there. I also mentioned this before when I pointed the Avalon wrapper and Ceki's proposal in December. (This Ceki's proposal: http://jakarta.apache.org/log4j/docs/proposal.html ) > Sorry, I never even noticed this one (which has nothing at all to do with > its value, or whether it was first or not, yadda yadda). Just out of > curiousity, was this abstraction new as of the 1.1 check-in (10/31/2001), > or did it get migrated from somewhere else in the code base? I mentioned this A LOT in December. I repeated several times that the stuff I posted is from there. I even posted the package and the name of the CVS repository. Have fun, Paulo Gaspar > -----Original Message----- > From: Craig R. McClanahan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Tuesday, January 29, 2002 9:22 PM > To: Jakarta Commons Developers List > Subject: Re: [Logging] [VOTE] Commons Logging 1.0 Release > > > > > On Tue, 29 Jan 2002, Berin Loritsch wrote: > > > Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2002 15:00:55 -0500 > > From: Berin Loritsch <[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 > > > > Craig R. McClanahan wrote: > > > > > > > > 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'm absolutely +1 on attribution, though, as long as its to > both of them. > > > > > > And you contributed to Avalon's logging abstraction how? > > > > ??? > > I don't want any credit for anything related to logging. I want people > who originated the ideas get credit for it. And I learned quite a bunch > of what I know about logging from Ceki. > > > > > > > > > >>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. > > > > > > That is what the Avalon Logging abstraction is all about. I am > not talking > > about Avalon's LogKit. I am talking about the interfaces and facades in > > org.apache.avalon.framework.logging package. > > > > Sorry, I never even noticed this one (which has nothing at all to do with > its value, or whether it was first or not, yadda yadda). Just out of > curiousity, was this abstraction new as of the 1.1 check-in (10/31/2001), > or did it get migrated from somewhere else in the code base? > > BTW, you might want to review the use of the "short form" Apache license > in the Avalon sources. Comments from PMC/Board folks in the past have > been that only the long-form is appropriate. > > > > > > > > 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. > > > > > > And nothing in the Avalon logging abstraction *requires* the > developer to > > use LogKit. > > > > Craig > > > -- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[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]>
