I wasnt accusing anyone of being childish. I wish you wouldnt put words in my mouth. I merely meant that the demands of a business environment are quite different then the demands of non-business environments. Many open source projects have yet to bridge this gulf and only a few have done it sucessfully (apache web server, ant, log4j, tomcat, jboss). For example, the decision to NOT distribute a binary build of cocoon is a good example of going in the opposite direction of business. Many business consultants are not interested in building source, but rather using the product as is.
I wasnt insulting anyone and i appologize if it sounded like that. However, we have to recognize that Cocoon, although great, has some shortfalls when it comes to business applications. -- Robert "Gianugo Rabellino" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb im Newsbeitrag news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Robert Simmons wrote: > > >>>Actually, I was proposign the removal of the avalon logging mechanism > >>>completely. > >> > >>You'll have to provide a very good technical reason for that, much more > >>than "I like Log4J better" or "Log4J is cool". Consider that: > > > > > > How about the fact that multiple layers of logging exacerbate performance > > problems intrinsic to logging. Also how about the fact that Log4j is faster > > and far more powerful and flexible in production environments where you may > > want logging to go to a specific server. Also how about the fact that most > > other java products that log use log4j and very very few use avalon logging. > > All nice & dandy, but I'd like to see some figures to prove your > statements: what does "faster" actually mean? Are there any benchmarks > around? So far the only problem you outlined was the multi-layer > performance hit. Now, I can't speak for the actual Log4J avalon adapter > performance, but: > > 1. are you sure that you can't achieve the same result with logkit? I'm > succesfully logging to a remote server ATM using syslog, and I have no > problems with it; > > 2. JMS logging and performance concerns are oxymorons. Multi layered > logging would be a breeze compared to what it takes to build and send a > JMS message; > > 3. A production Cocoon does not log much. If you raise the log level to > WARN (or even INFO), you won't get so much logging to be concerned about > performance. Since (almost) every log statament is wrapped if > is*Enabled() methods, you will never hit the multilayer performance issue. > > > > I think about the business applications of cocoon which are far different > > than the open source programming aspects. > > > Avalon is as old as AWT and I think just as outdated. > > These two statements are overly aggressive and somehow insulting. We do > business with Cocoon, and most of us have experience with large sites > and serious logging needs. Accusing the Cocoon and Avalon committers of > being childish open source kiddies playing with their toy and not being > innovative is not a good way to sell your point. > > > welcome. Let me be skeptical, though. :-) > > > > > > Skeptical is good as long as it doesnt change into stubborness. > > Lets make a deal and avoid both stubborness and aggressive attitude > then. I would suggest you to discuss the Log4J vs. Logkit implementation > issues on the proper lists and come back here with more evidence. You > might even convince the Avalon guys to switch to Logkit... > > Ciao, > > > -- > Gianugo Rabellino > Pro-netics s.r.l. - http://www.pro-netics.com > Orixo, the XML business alliance - http://www.orixo.com > (Now blogging at: http://blogs.cocoondev.org/gianugo/) > >
