Hi all, I am assuming you mean a discussion about having two "competing" log viewers shipped with log4j. (The term "log viewer" might be incomplete but I'll use it nonetheless for the sake of simplicity.)
We went from having no log viewers to having two. We arrived at this situation "in the open" but in a relatively short period of time (< 1 month). By "in the open", I of course mean that relevant discussions were mostly conducted on the log4j-dev list although there were a few phone conversations and one thread on [EMAIL PROTECTED] about the legal aspects of the lf5 contribution. The future of chainsaw and lf5 depends mostly on their developers. The developers might decide to merge their efforts or continue separately. Although duplication is usually a wasted effort, it is up to the developers directly involved to decide where they want to spend their efforts. I feel that it is not up to the larger log4j community to impose a decision. Collaboration between developers depends on concrete needs but also on the personalities of the developers. On the latter aspect, I think we have been very lucky with both chainsaw and lf5. This does not mean that things cannot turn sour. Since all Apache copyrighted code lives under the same roof, there are no legal brakes for "borrowing" code from one project in another and even less so within the same project such as log4j. Although there are no legal hurdles, moral ones do exist. When you use code from another author, it does not cost much to ask for permission to do so. Even with permission, it does not hurt to keep the name of the original author. As far as I am concerned these are moral *obligations*. Coming back to chainsaw and lf5, there are several outcomes: 1) Both log viewers find a niche within the "log viewing" niche and live happily (but separately) ever after. 2) The developers of one viewer punt, stop investing and their viewer dies a slow death. 3) The developers decide to merge their efforts. In any case, it is up to the developers doing the coding to decide what to do with the future of their efforts. Feel free to comment, disagree, point to alternatives, but whatever you do, avoid trashing another author's code. Cheers, Ceki At 10:31 03.05.2002 -0700, Mark Womack wrote: >Max, > >I think we would all love to accept and review whatever patches you want to >submit. I know that I find the Chainsaw filtering invaluable. > >Things are still waiting for 1.2 to finish up and release before the new >stuff goes forward. And there is some needed discussion about the Chainsaw >& LogFactor5 clients that needs to happen. Right, guys? -- Ceki -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
