This is probably only worth saying one time, so please take this as informational, and not as argumentative.
First, the term we use is - in the end - of no real concern to us. We have a functional requirement. Would be nice if the term was meaningful. That said, I believe "enterprise" is meaningful, if not familiar to some of our peer developers. Enterprise: An undertaking, especially one of some scope, complication, and risk. "Enterprise" does have a lot of marketing hype behind it, yet I assure you, as a developer, my (and IBMs) intent is not market-speak. From my perspective, this is an "old" term describing the best-practices and design considerations that are different for large systems. There IS a learning curve that a programmer must work through to understand the change in mind-set required for writing software that would be deployed into such environments. And yes, many of these are cumbersome and undesirable for others. The separation between Log and EnterpriseLog should address this concern. In that light, from the perspective of a 2.0 release, there is justification for adding (upwards compatible) some elements of the proposal, or variants thereof, to the Log interface. That would expose some new function to the more simple use cases, and allow the more difficult to digest API's to remain on EnterpriseLog. David Graham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on 12/11/2004 01:04:40 PM: > 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. > > There are no "JSR-mandated logging requirements" for commons logging so > I'm not really sure what that means. > > David > > --- "Noel J. Bergman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > It disturbs me that what seems to me to be a reasonable and small set of > > requirements --- along with what appears to have been considerable > > forethought based upon real world issues, and experiences supporting > > many > > developers --- appears to be discounted a bit too out of hand. I hope > > my > > perception is wrong. > > > > Does anyone really dispute the requirement to support localization for > > log > > messages or the additional JSR-mandated logging requirements? If not, > > then > > let's work constructively towards satisfying the requirements. And not > > by > > relying upon some IDE's tooling. > > > > --- Noel > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > > > > __________________________________ > Do you Yahoo!? > Read only the mail you want - Yahoo! Mail SpamGuard. > http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > ******************************************* Richard A. Sitze IBM WebSphere WebServices Development --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
