> He is very oppinionated, its true, but he *can* be convinced. You just > have to be persistent, and explain your thinking clearly.
I even think that Peter is easier to convince than Berin!!! ]:o) Have fun, Paulo > -----Original Message----- > From: Berin Loritsch [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Tuesday, January 29, 2002 11:05 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:[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]>
