On Jan 11, 2008 3:26 PM, Emmanuel Lecharny <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > After some discussion with David Loyd on IRC, the context has been > clarified : Log2Log won't be an Apache project. > > Here is the copy of this convo : > > <dmlloyd> elecharny: don't worry - log2log is a completely separate > project. No impact on MINA or any ASF project whatsoever - and thus it > is out of Alex's (or anyone else's) jurisdiction :) > <elecharny> where will it be stored ? > <dmlloyd> jboss.org > <elecharny> ok > <elecharny> this was not clear in Trustin's mail... > <elecharny> so my question :) > <dmlloyd> it's a reasonable question :) > <elecharny> can you answer it on the ML so that Alex don't get mad ? > <dmlloyd> hm, well I think alex gets mad any time he sees the name > "David Lloyd" and "Logging" together :) > <dmlloyd> but I can do so > <elecharny> dmlloyd, don't think that Alex has anything against you at all. > <elecharny> it's all about the way the ASF works > <dmlloyd> yeah, the whole veto thing > <elecharny> there are rules, they must be followed, thaht's it > <elecharny> in three years, Alex just vetoed one single thing, and it > was the log proposal > <elecharny> pretty reasonnable ... > <dmlloyd> sure > > > Another thing that's I don't think is correct : I searched about an > announcement on the SLF4j site about this MDC improvement and didn't > found any. After some googling, I found the convos here : > > http://www.nabble.com/basic-MDC-support-for-java.util.logging-td13142522.html > > It's certainly mandatory to CC the MINA mailing list for such things, as > it has an impact on the code base. Some of us may have some opinions or > ideas about other technical solutions, and would prefer to be informed > before any decision is made. And having to google to get the rationals > is definitively painful... > > This is the way we work, and it should be followed, for the good of the > project !
Hi Emmanuel, I don't really understand what you are complaining about ? 1) Asking Ceki to make all SLF4J implementations MDC-capable was discussed on this mailing-list before. see http://www.nabble.com/result-poll-logging-frameworks-td13097527s16868.html#a13209806 quoting myself: "In fact, I think this functionality could be added to SLF4J to make all SLF4J implementations MDC-capable. I'll ask Ceki what he thinks about it." 2) The proposal to remove the IoSessionLogger was discussed in the same thread 3) Announcing the fact that SLF4J accepted my patch and will have MDC support for jul in the next version was the very aim of this thread (hence the title: "The new version of SLF4J is going to support MDC for logging frameworks without MDC" which actually should have been: "The new version of SLF4J is going to support MDC for java.util.logging" ) So please explain me what went wrong according to you ? Do you think that all my mails to the SLF4J mailing-list should have been cross-posted to the MINA list ? kind regards Maarten > > Thanks. > > > -- > -- > cordialement, regards, > Emmanuel Lécharny > www.iktek.com > directory.apache.org > > >
