On Thu, Mar 24, 2005 at 05:55:36PM +0100, Ceki G�lc� wrote: ... > By the same token, many developers are strongly repulsed by that same > brand. (I've heard of several oss project who won't touch jakarta commons > with a 12-feet pole because of its reliance on JCL.)
Yes - but unfortunately a large number of open source projects have adopted JCL, without understanding the pain they're inflicting on users. Not understanding, they have no reason to migrate to something different. However if there were a 'JCL 2.0' available, there is a clear migration path. Switching becomes the safe, officially endorsed option. I wonder if anyone appreciates the scale of the commons-logging disaster. Personally I have spent *weeks* fighting commons-logging issues. Our company's product (JIRA) ships two .war's, one with and one without commons-logging. Just this week I ended up forking an open source project for internal use to get rid of the commons-logging dependency, because I simply could not get its logging working under Tomcat (which ships JCL). Multiply this experience across the whole industry (JCL is that pervasive), and you see that a *ridiculous* amount of pain has been caused by a stupid little log wrapper. So please don't let egos or politics screw up any chance of a solution to this mess. Take something that works (UGLI sounds the best candidate), call it 'JCL 2.0', encourage everyone to use it, and we can all get on with life. --Jeff > -- > Ceki G�lc� > > The complete log4j manual: http://www.qos.ch/log4j/ > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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]
