It has been a while since I developed in C++, but couldn't a commons-logging project under Logging Services also develop generic logging interfaces for other languages than just Java? That would fall under the LS umbrella, and might be pretty cool.
-Mark > -----Original Message----- > From: Mark Womack [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Thursday, March 24, 2005 9:33 AM > To: 'Log4J Developers List' > Subject: RE: JDJ - log4j vs java.util.logging > > 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
