I like the idea of moving commons logging out of Jakarta and into Logging Services. I have to admit that I have always been a little perplexed that it was done in Jakarta Commons, but at the time logging within Apache was very log4j focused. Now that log4j lives in Logging Services, with other cross-language, cross-platform projects, I think a better case can be made that commons-logging should be developed and maintained here.
Not to get away from the technical aspects of the issue, but Yoav is right about the marketing and branding. We need a single focus that will be adopted quickly and by a majority of the projects. JCL is perfect for this. We could still argue the technical merits of a different solution, but it will be an uphill slog to get adoption. And besides, JCL needs to be fixed anyway. So, how do we go about proposing that JCL move to LS and that work on JCL 2.0 should be started? We will obviously need buy-in from the Jakarta Commons folk. I would like to see some number of the JCL committers/interested parties make and facilitate the migration. I guess we would need to drop the "J" from "JCL". :-) -Mark > -----Original Message----- > From: Yoav Shapira [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Thursday, March 24, 2005 8:25 AM > To: 'Log4J Developers List' > Subject: RE: JDJ - log4j vs java.util.logging > > Hi, > > > So, is the only concern the brand name "JCL"? It seems to be. > > Yup. > > > If the > > code is > > going to be completely different and not backwards compatible with the > > existing > > "JCL" it isn't really "JCL", so why call it "JCL"? > > Because the brand name is powerful and will lead to rapid adoption. > > > Why not call it > > "UGLI"? And > > Because that's an ugly acronym (pun intended) and an unfamiliar one, > leading > to "yet another logging interface" discussions. > > > if it has to do with logging, why should it be a Jakarta project when > > there > > exists an official Apache logging services project? > > It can be moved to a Logging Services project, doesn't have to stay within > Jakarta. > > > It seems to me that > > UGLI > > has already solved the problems that the proposed JCL 2.0 is supposed to > > solve. > > UGLI hasn't solved anything in practice, because there's no one using it. > If you take UGLI and call it JCL 2.0 (having obtained consensus from the > JCL > team), then you have a point. > > > And if UGLI hasn't completely addressed all logging API issues, then > why > > doesn't the JCL 2.0 team accept that there has already been work done to > > There's no such thing as a JCL 2.0 team at this time. There's also no > argument about whether UGLI has addressed all the issues: if UGLI hasn't > done so already, it surely will shortly. > > > I don't mean for this to be flamebait. > > It's not, or at least I'm not taking it as such. The questions are good. > > > I'm just really perplexed as to > > why JCL > > 2.0 is needed now that UGLI exists? > > Because I don't think anyone will adopt UGLI quickly. It's "yet another > logging interface" to most people. > > > The fact > > that > > there still exists a group in Apache developing a logging API that > > continues to > > work outside the official logging services project is awefully strange > as > > well. > > I can understand this between completely separate open source entities, > > but not > > within the same (Apache) organization. Very strange. > > Top-level projects within the ASF are almost entirely separate > organizations. A good argument could be made that Logging Services should > have taken JCL with it when moving Log4j out of Jakarta. A good argument > can be made that the same applies now: we should move JCL out of Jakarta > and > into Logging Services. > > In addition, two other small points: there's not much active development > on > JCL at the moment. And lack of coordination between organizational > entities > is not at all a strange phenomenon: it's a sub-optimal and sometimes even > bad one, but it's common unfortunately. We need to proactively work on > better coordination. > > This is not a discussion of technical merits for the most part. I don't > doubt UGLI is much better. I do doubt people will be eager to adapt it > without a massive and prolonged marketing campaign. That campaign could > be > made much easier and shorter if we called it JCL 2.0. > > Yoav > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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]
