This is not just about the fact that changes can be made by anybody in their own implementations. This is also a message to all prospective users of OFBiz, and to the organisations who are trying to sell OFBiz as a solution to their prospective customers.
'OFBiz doesn't have an error log OOTB' is a stupid message to convey to those parties. 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 11:27 AM, Scott Gray <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>> > >> > >> > > > >
