Answer inline: > -----Original Message----- > From: robert burrell donkin [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2002 8:01 PM > > On Wednesday, January 30, 2002, at 01:47 PM, Berin Loritsch wrote: > > > Paulo Gaspar wrote: > > <snip> > > >> My personal dislike on the commons process since mid December > >> was the opposition to cross pollination just because of personal > >> issues, AFAIK. > > > > > > My observation as well. Sad isn't it? > > i'm *REALLY* fed up with paulo's continual misrepresentation.
You sure waited a long time to "correct" me. > paulo continues to display his ignorance of the origins of > commons-logging. Your argument was (and I am going to quote you yet again: > -----Original Message----- > From: robert burrell donkin [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Friday, January 11, 2002 7:44 PM > To: Jakarta Commons Developers List > Subject: Re: how should log levels work? [Was Re: [Logging] default log > level] > <SNIP /> > > i've said before that i'd be very happy to consider your suggestion as a > 'second generation commons logging package' but anything with > peter's name > anywhere near it is too divisive for me to even consider as a first > generation solution. > > - robert It is not clear to me that "anything with peter's name anywhere near it" means anything else than a personal issue. > my personal issue with cross pollination from avalon into > commons-logging > is that using avalon was vetoed to death in the original debates. Please help me to overcome my ignorance: - Was the veto on the cross-pollination? - Was the veto on learning anything from Avalon? - Was the veto on forking Avalon code? - Does that mean that you can not fork the code or at least read it and learn from it? I mean, basically the Apache license allows me to use the Avalon code in anyway I see fit, modifying it or not, even for commercial projects and all if I just give credit to Apache ... ... but the Apache jakarta-commons project can not do the same??? > commons-logging was set up with a commitment to independence. if i was to > add code from avalon, i would not only go against the expressed will of > the commons but also against the expressed aims of commons-logging. Sorry, I thought the aim was to have a common logging wrapper as usable and robust as possible. > as > i've said many times, if paulo wanted to change those things, he should > have made a proposal and put it to the vote. I am no committer. I believe I could NOT do such thing. > there is a big distinction between liking some and being willing to > advocate it. i actually think that logkit is cool but i'm not willing to > debate the merits of different logging systems and i'm certainly > not going > to act as an advocate for any particular one. I am did not say anything about LogKit. The Avalon wrapper supports all the "main" APIs - Log4J, LogKit and JSR 47 - remember? > i think that i'm now finished wasting my time on this. I though that the waste of time was ignoring prior art and reinventing the wheel again. That is the waste I would like to terminate. > - robert Have fun, Paulo Gaspar -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
