The only reason why I -1 typesafe logging is because I don't think we really need it for internal development. I don't think we should rule out providing it as a feature - if that makes any sense. I think it adds complexity that we probably don't really need. I guess I don't have a very strong opinion though, so I could change that to a +0 for typesafe logging.
~Lincoln On Wed, Jan 25, 2012 at 7:03 AM, Pete Muir <[email protected]> wrote: > I don't think internationalized error messages don't make sense from a > technical perspective. All the arguments I've seen against them are social > (we can't as easily answer their questions as we can't understand the error > message). If there are technical reasons, I would be interested to hear > them. > > PS at Red Hat, the roles are a bit different. Engineers come up with the > ideas, and Product Managers filter whether they make sense for the business > to sell or not. > > On 25 Jan 2012, at 11:57, Mark Struberg wrote: > > > 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)<https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/DeltaSpike/Suggested+Git+Workflows#SuggestedGitWorkflows-Discussionworkflow%28optional%29> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> 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 > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >> > > -- Lincoln Baxter, III http://ocpsoft.com http://scrumshark.com "Keep it Simple"
