Product Managers often likes to have stuff - and also often they cannot argument WHY they like to have them ;)
That's part of the job of a Product Manager - to come up with new ideas. Some of them are good, others are not. Our job as technician is to filter out the ones who make no sense from a technological perspective. LieGrue, strub ----- Original Message ----- > From: Pete Muir <[email protected]> > To: [email protected] > Cc: > Sent: Wednesday, January 25, 2012 12:23 PM > Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Logging > > > > Also, > > On 25 Jan 2012, at 09:25, Gerhard Petracek wrote: > >> 1) -1 for i18n logging (i think we agree on it already) > > I know our product managers are after i8ln for log messages - at least INFO > (IIRC) and above should be l10n'd. I'll try to share the why when > I've chatted to them. > > So, I'm +0 right now. > >> 2) +1 for fast internal logging > > +10 > >> 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. > > +10 > >> 4) +0.5 for a >thin< abstraction layer + jul as default (>at > least< to get >> a more concise api) > > I would be +1 here, we've seen this work well in JBoss AS 7, and it seems > much neater than the previous log4j stuff we had. However this might just be > a > better thin layer ;-) > >> 5) +1 for supporting type-safe logging for applications, >if< we keep > it in >> an own module > > +1 > >> 6) -1 for using type-safe logging >within< deltaspike (imo we > don't need it >> internally) > > +1 > >> 7) +1 for error-codes > > +1 - we would really appreciate this at JBoss, when it comes time to provide > support to our customers for Deltaspike. > >> 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 >>>> >>> >>> >
