Ceki,
What about making clear that commons-logging is only supposed to be used by other components so that the application developer picks the logging API that suits him best? Do you really believe that all application developers will use Log4J? Or do you want to force them into doing that? Do you have any doubt that lots of companies will follow the policy of using the JDK 1.4 Logging API just "because it is the one that comes with Java"? Do you really think that the persons imposing such decision will care about what is good and what is bad? And then the ones getting the mess will be the developers and the commons-logging will help those. And will also help them to use the components/libs that use it. This sounds like just another of your pro-log4j-anti-anything-else campaigns, containing the usual amount of FUD of any blind campaign. A "blind campaign" is one where the single motivation of the campaigner is defending some interest/belief against all others... without really trying to SEE or get precise information on what those others really are. The blindness towards the other alternatives tends to grow a considerable amount of misinformation on the blind campaigner and, then, he vigorously spreads it - hence the resulting spread of FUD. You seem to be following a pattern here, since you are doing just the same as you usually do against LogKit, including the misinformation bit. Although both you and Peter turn a bit silly when under the influence of another-logger-war, I always notice that you know much less about LogKit than Peter knows about log4j. (And yes, I know both well enough to clearly notice that). It is sad that you show to be more interested on destroying the "competition" than on learning from it. Well, at least you did not accuse the commons-logging guys from plagiarism just yet, as you did about the LogKit guys. Ceki, I know you are quite smart, constructive and helpful and I respect you for that. But when you get in these logging wars, you don't seem to be the same person. You could at least try to be well informed and inform well when you talk about other logging APIs. Have fun, Paulo Gaspar > -----Original Message----- > From: Ceki Gulcu [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Thursday, March 28, 2002 11:14 PM > To: Jakarta General List > Subject: Re: Comments on the commons-logging API > > > At 15:30 28.03.2002 -0600, Morgan Delagrange wrote: > > >I am pro-Log4J. I wish I lived in that Log4J-only world (until/unless > >something better came along). Generally, commons-logging > neither encourages > >nor discourages use of Log4J. However, I would argue that it _does_ > >encourage Log4J a bit by not forcing a logging implementation war. > > True. It does encourage it, but only initially. On the long run, > however, people will run into problems with their logging (as is > happening now). They will say this commons-logging+log4j stuff is too > complicated, we'll switch to JDK 1.4 logging, at least that does not > have any CLASSPATH problems. > > >The fact is, JDK 1.4 logging in particular is going to become > more and more > >common over time, and unless someone can summon forth a magic > recantation of > >that JSR, then a component-level interface with popular loggers is > >necessary. Otherwise you have to pick, which only services us at the > >expense of those who use other logger implementations. > > Possible but I would not be that sure. We will have very strong new > features in log4j 1.3 (the release after 1.2) which will leave JDK 1.4 > logging even further behind. Just as importantly, log4j documentation > is going to get a massive boost with the upcoming log4j book. > > Sun's me-too strategy is bound to fail. The question is whether the > bigger jakarta community is going to help us defeat JSR47 or stand in > the way. > > -- > Ceki > My link of the month: http://java.sun.com/aboutJava/standardization/ > -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
