Not sure if my "old" vote counted or not, so if it means anything, I'm +0
on this as it stands.
<ras>
*******************************************
Richard A. Sitze [EMAIL PROTECTED]
CORBA Interoperability & WebServices
IBM WebSphere Development
<costinm@covalen
t.net> To: Jakarta Commons Developers
List
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
04/05/2002 12:46 cc:
PM Subject: Re: [logging] Need
interface... VOTE
Please respond
to "Jakarta
Commons
Developers List"
On Fri, 5 Apr 2002, Michael A. Smith wrote:
> this seems contradictory to me. On one hand you say "no need for another
> package" and on the other "create a package.... would be useful".
No need for another package with Log interface and pull.
Usefull for another package ( if he can't convince those who voted -1 to
switch ) with the push interface and maybe management interfaces.
Costin
> This seems contradictory again. "put LogUser in a separate pacakge" and
> "+1 on putting LogUser in o.a.c.l". Am I missing something?
He has my +1 for o.a.c.l, but I've seen few -1s around. If he can't
get those changed, a separate package for LogUser is the only solution.
> Oh, and "we are all saying - put LogUser in a separate package"? I'm
not.
> If it goes in, I think it should go in the o.a.c.l package.
I agree - if the -1 are changed.
If not - a separate package ( i.e. in sandbox - if he can't get it
accepted in o.a.c.l ) is the only solution ( and nobody can stop that ).
Costin
--
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]>
