Sandra,
At 13:56 20.06.2001 -0400, you wrote:
>Ceki,
>
>I was reading http://jakarta.apache.org/log4j/docs/critique.html today and
>would like to request if you would make a posting to our opensource listserv
>([EMAIL PROTECTED]) and perhaps also to our Expresso online Users
>Forum
>(http://www.jcorporate.com/components/internal/projframe.jsp?category=65) in
>order to generate more responses to the [EMAIL PROTECTED] The
>more that people are aware of the issues the more that they will be able to
>participate.
Wouldn't it be more appropriate if an Expresso developer who is know in that community
asked for support. If I do, it would not be as effective.
>Expresso uses log4j and Expresso has more than 51,000 downloads. We just
>announced a new release today version 3.11.
Cool.
>Sandra Cann
>[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>P.S. As an aside Express is mispelled Espresso in the above URL and I was
>wondering if you would correct.
Sorry about that. Just fixed it.
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Ceki Gülcü [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>> Sent: Wednesday, June 13, 2001 7:00 AM
>> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED];
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> Subject: Fwd: JSR47 vs. log4j
>>
>>
>>
>> Greetings,
>>
>> Since yesterday evening a non-negligible number of requests were
>> directed to [EMAIL PROTECTED] I find Ellis Teer's
>> comments (included below) quite interesting.
>>
>> My critique of the JSR47 API can be found at:
>>
>> http://jakarta.apache.org/log4j/docs/critique.html
>>
>> If you agree with its contents, you are encouraged to send your
>> own comments to
>>
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>
>> Thanks, Ceki
>>
>> >Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> >Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2001 18:35:16 -0700 (PDT)
>> >From: Ellis Teer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> >Subject: JSR47 vs. log4j
>> >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> >
>> >To whom it may concern,
>> >
>> >I feel that the differences between log4j and the JSR47 API
>> outlined at the
>> >following URL are significant.
>> >
>> >http://jakarta.apache.org/log4j/docs/critique.html
>> >
>> >I also feel, that rather than reinventing the wheel the JSR47
>> group should
>> >incorporate the log4j API rather than recreating it. The
>> standards put forth
>> >by the JSR group will eventually replace any similarly
>> functioning external API
>> >due to its incorporation into the JDK. For the number of people
>> who already
>> >use log4j, such as myself, it feels that Sun by way of including
>> this new API
>> >in the JDK is forcing users of log4j to switch. I understand
>> that there are
>> >licensing issues but I suspect Ceki would be accommodating in
>> this regard.
>> >
>> >In addition, by incorporating such projects into the API rather
>> than recreating
>> >them from scratch I believe Sun will promote more projects like
>> these to move
>> >forward rather than possibly dissuading programmers from
>> creating new API's for
>> >fear that their work will become useless by Sun's recreation of
>> their features
>> >in the next JDK.
>> >
>> >I point to the success of Tomcat as an example.
>> >
>> >Sincerely,
>> >
>> >-Ellis Teer
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>
>
>
>---------------------------------------------------------------------
>To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
Ceki Gülcü
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
