On Sun, 2004-12-12 at 08:04, David Graham wrote: > What you're seeing is the natural result of design conversations held > outside of the mailing list. No one here had the benefit of participating > in the localized logging design so naturally we're asking questions and > making suggestions. > > Additionally, it might have helped all of us if the proposal didn't use > marketing hype terms devoid of meaning (ie. "enterprise") to describe what > is actually a small and reasonable set of additions related to localized > messages.
On the subject of the "EnterpriseLog" name proposed by Richard: if you read the commons-logging "user guide" document, you will see where that name came from: http://jakarta.apache.org/commons/logging/guide.html Despite this, I agree that it is probably still too grand a name for the classes used to support the patterns described in the "enterprise" section of this doc. NB: As Richard Sitze has noted elsewhere, he actually wrote at least the "enterprise" section of this document. Unfortunately the cvs log doesn't show that, presumably because the file was moved from somewhere else when the build process was 'mavenised'. The terminology in that doc is *probably* derived from the fact that Richard works on J2EE frameworks. The patterns described there certainly are useful when a commercial entity has a support "contract". And they are useful in environments where software monitoring/alerting systems are in place (eg Nagios/BigBrother/Zabbix/Tivoli/OpenView). But they can also be regarded as good practice for many open-source frameworks and libraries that would not typically refer to themselves as "enterprise" software. Richard: sorry if I misrepresented your view on any of this. Cheers, Simon --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
