What if we move this to an own i18n module together with the Message factory stuff? Just an idea, I bet there are better options out there.
LieGrue, strub ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Lincoln Baxter, III" <[email protected]> > To: [email protected] > Cc: > Sent: Friday, January 27, 2012 5:07 AM > Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Logging > >T he 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" >
