full ack. LieGrue, strub
----- Original Message ----- > From: Gerhard Petracek <[email protected]> > To: [email protected] > Cc: > Sent: Wednesday, January 25, 2012 10:25 AM > Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Logging > > 1) -1 for i18n logging (i think we agree on it already) > 2) +1 for fast internal logging > 3) +1 for avoiding dependencies (or shade them in - if it's really needed > and we are allowed to do it). > it would be nice if all of our modules which are directly related to > java-ee specs. can be used without additional dependencies for applications > which get deployed to a java-ee6+ application-server. > 4) +0.5 for a >thin< abstraction layer + jul as default (>at least< > to get > a more concise api) > 5) +1 for supporting type-safe logging for applications, >if< we keep it > in > an own module > 6) -1 for using type-safe logging >within< deltaspike (imo we don't > need it > internally) > 7) +1 for error-codes > 8) +1 for talking about concrete prototype/s (via [1]) and resolve this > topic in v0.2 > > regards, > gerhard > > [1] > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/DeltaSpike/Suggested+Git+Workflows#SuggestedGitWorkflows-Discussionworkflow(optional) > > > > 2012/1/25 Gerhard Petracek <[email protected]> > >> +1! >> >> regards, >> gerhard >> >> >> >> >> 2012/1/25 Mark Struberg <[email protected]> >> >>> >> -1 to i18n and typesafe logging for version one. >>> >> >>> > >>> > Lincoln, why you hatin' on type-safe logging? Brother, hook me > up with >>> a +1 >>> > :) >>> > >>> > -Dan >>> > >>> >>> Hehe, that's the nice thing here at Apache. >>> Since we only discuss those things on strictly technical levels we are >>> still all brothers, even if we get some -1 sometimes :) >>> >>> Don't worry Dan, if there are diverse opinions, then we have passed > the >>> test for the first lesson: free thinking :) >>> >>> Having some +1 and -1 in an early discussion phase only means one > thing: >>> we need more arguments. >>> >>> Lincoln, most of the times (at least if you see that a few people > already >>> casted +1 for some idea) it's very helpful if you underline your -1 > with >>> technical arguments means "_why_ you don't like type-safe > logging" and/or >>> the requirements you would have for such a feature to be successful. >>> >>> Most votes here are majority votes [1], but I've seen it many times > that >>> (even after there are already lots of +1 on the table) a single person >>> outlined a problem and did cast -1. And if the argument is valid, > it's >>> pretty often the case that the others recall their +1 and change it to > -1 >>> as well. >>> >>> It's really all about the arguments. >>> >>> LieGrue, >>> strub >>> >>> [1] http://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html >>> >> >> >
