At 06:04 PM 3/24/2005, Jacob Kjome wrote:
We for me, the brand name "JCL" carries a lot of baggage with it and if JCL 2.0
is supposed to be the new official logging API, it will take some time get over
my nauseous aversion to the name even if it finally works properly. So far from
the name being an advantage, to someone like me, it is a severe disadvantage.
But I suppose I'm in the minority.
First, being in a minority does not mean you are wrong. Second, countless other developers share your opinion. On this topic it's hard to say who holds a minority opinion and who doesn't.
I actually like the UGLI name. I find pleasure in the idea of producing a
product that is so good, people just need to use it despite the fact that they
may choke a bit on the name :-) As for "yet another logging interface" (YALI),
JCL 2.0, if it ever comes to fruition (remember, UGLI actually exists and
works!), being backward incompatible, is essentially a new logging interface.
So whether we talk about UGLI or JCL 2.0, we are definitely talking about YALI.
However, I suspect that you agree with me on this and are just saying that
people will percieve UGLI to be YALI and not JCL 2.0, even though both are. Am
I right?
Some people like the name, some people don't. There is no harm in looking at more consensual names.
> > 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. >
And then no longer be called JCL "Jakarta Commons Logging", thereby ruining the
brand?
:-)
Which is why I have a hard time even understanding why such a team is proposed when UGLI already exists. The first question should have been "can UGLI be utilized to solve our issue"? If the major concern is branding, then the fact that UGLI wasn't the first option tells me that there is a conscious effort to eschew UGLI from consideration. I certainly haven't seen such a proposal from the JCL people on the Log4j mailing list. Is such a proposal on its way?
Interesting question.
Again, I have yet to see the proposal from the JCL team. It should have been
the first question to come up, and it should have come up a long time ago.
Maybe I'm watching the wrong lists? But if they want to work proactively with
Log4j, which currently develops UGLI, then it would behoove them to contact the
Log4j list, in which case I would most definitely see it.
YAIQ (yet another interesting question)
Jake
> Yoav
-- Ceki Gülcü
The complete log4j manual: http://www.qos.ch/log4j/
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
