I'm not trying to force anything, I didn't make the change. I'm just stating my opinion in this debate the same as you or anyone else. Even the change is not about forcing anyone into a specific workflow, the debate is about making sensible defaults for OFBiz. Changes can be made to suit anyone's needs in their respective checkouts.
Regards Scott On 15/09/2014, at 9:19 pm, Jacques Le Roux <[email protected]> wrote: > Not when you want to quickly spot obvious errors that you can easily fix or > wait to fix later, and yes I spent my share of debugging also... > > But anyway, why do you want to *force* everybody to use the same way than > you, are you an OFBiz prophet? > > Jacques > > Le 15/09/2014 10:53, Scott Gray a écrit : >> As someone who has spent thousands of hours debugging OFBiz installations I >> can assure you that the error.log is redundant and provides no true value >> over ofbiz.log. As I've mentioned a few times now, OFBiz errors are >> regularly worthless without knowledge of the context of the error which can >> only be found in ofbiz.log. >> >> With a few command line tools "clutter" is a total non-issue and even a >> basic knowledge of those tools is a total time saver when investigating log >> files. >> >> Regards >> Scott >> >> On 15/09/2014, at 7:43 pm, Pierre Smits <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> On the basis that log analysis and error identification/reporting costs >>> money, and the more complex this process is the more it costs. >>> An error log contains less clutter and is the first point in identification >>> and triage of (severe) issues in any organisation that has adopted a >>> methodology for service delivery (e.g. ITIL, ISO/IEC 20000, etc), >>> specifically the error control process (in ITIL) >>> >>> Without this OOTB more time is spend on: >>> >>> - going through the other, more detailed log(s) in the various OFBiz >>> systems an organisation might have (e.g. dev, test, prod, etc) >>> - getting the error log back and ensuring that it stays in. >>> >>> >>> >>> Pierre Smits >>> >>> *ORRTIZ.COM <http://www.orrtiz.com>* >>> Services & Solutions for Cloud- >>> Based Manufacturing, Professional >>> Services and Retail & Trade >>> http://www.orrtiz.com >>> >>> On Mon, Sep 15, 2014 at 2:29 AM, Scott Gray <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> On what basis? >>>> >>>> Regards >>>> Scott >>>> >>>> On 12/09/2014, at 9:44 pm, Pierre Smits <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>>> I support reverting this regression. >>>>> >>>>> Pierre Smits >>>>> >>>>> *ORRTIZ.COM <http://www.orrtiz.com>* >>>>> Services & Solutions for Cloud- >>>>> Based Manufacturing, Professional >>>>> Services and Retail & Trade >>>>> http://www.orrtiz.com >>>>> >>>>> On Fri, Sep 12, 2014 at 11:29 AM, Jacopo Cappellato < >>>>> [email protected]> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> On Sep 12, 2014, at 10:35 AM, Jacques Le Roux < >>>>>> [email protected]> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> I don't understand why you are so not open to put back the error.log in >>>>>> log4j2.xml >>>>>> >>>>>> Because it is just one of 1 million possible ways to configure logging: >>>> it >>>>>> is a specific one on not a generic one and so it is not better than the >>>>>> other 1 million possibilities; you have explained why you like it but >>>> me or >>>>>> others could find similar arguments for the other millions ways; since >>>> no >>>>>> one seconded you in your attempt to add the configuration back this >>>>>> confirms to me that this specific configuration is not better than >>>> other; >>>>>> for this reason it should be left out of the trunk. >>>>>> >>>>>>> and qualify this as a mess and almost myself and idiot. >>>>>> I didn't say this and the mail archive can demonstrate it; you have been >>>>>> trying to raise the tone of the conversation since the beginning of this >>>>>> thread (and you did the same in at least another thread recently) but I >>>>>> will not start to fight with you. >>>>>> >>>>>> Jacopo >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>> >> >> >
