At 00:57 29.03.2002 +0100, Paulo Gaspar wrote: >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?
That seems to be the intent of commons-logging. I have pointed out the problems with that approach. >Do you really believe that all application developers will use >Log4J? Or do you want to force them into doing that? I can't force people to do anything. >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"? Yes, I have my doubts. It still takes a human brain to program a computer. This is not different in Java. This fact is to remain valid for the foreseeable future. >Do you really think that the persons imposing such decision will >care about what is good and what is bad? Yes. People have brains. >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. Possibly. >This sounds like just another of your pro-log4j-anti-anything-else >campaigns, containing the usual amount of FUD of any blind campaign. Please avoid making generalizations. >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. I have a right to speak my mind as much as you do. >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). The issue with LogKit is entirely different. The current debate is perhaps tense but well within the bounds of mutual respect and civility. I made my reservations about the commons-logging API and its developers presented their counter arguments. >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. I never suspected (nor suggested) that commons-logging effort was dishonorable in any way. My contention is that it will make life harder not easier. Nothing more, nothing less. > -----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]> -- 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]>
