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.
Jeff, did you ask for help on the commons-user list? I can�t see any trace of it.
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.
Why are you accusing jcl developers of egos or politics? Where is your evidence for any such thing?
And if something doesn�t work but you never reported it, then why do you think the project maintainers have any incentive to change things?
Regards, Simon
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
