Endre, So, besides the trace level being put into the 1.2 branch, what other features are important that you feel we are not doing?
-Mark > -----Original Message----- > From: Endre Stølsvik [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Tuesday, May 03, 2005 7:20 AM > To: Log4J Developers List > Subject: Re: slf4j and log4j > > On Sun, 1 May 2005, Ceki Gülcü wrote: > > | > | I don't want to be dismissive but these are just a bunch of excuses. > Sure, > | the objections are all reasonable and all, but at the end of the day > they > | boil down to excuses preventing forward movement. > > Why don't you put the trace-level into the 1.2 branch, then?? > > Your excuses for NOT doing something that -clearly- lots of people want > (as demonstrated __multiple__ times on the different user lists), are -so > incredibly- more faint than those actual real and present problems that > Mark describes in his mail. > > What's the goal of slf4j if you're not going to have a discussion and a > proper release of that project, before -hammering- the stuff into log4j ON > THE STABLE 1.2 BRANCH???? Is it all just a play so that you can tell folks > that they're lame, since they don't love your new > developed-in-an-open-fashion framework, that were released after two weeks > or so, w/o any "community feedback" at all? This is borderline ridiculous. > > The JCL/log4j issues are taking too much time, time that would be better > spent on adding the trace level into the 1.2 branch and cutting a release! > > ( ;) ) > > | > | Fortunately, this is open source where we can take our marbles and play > | elsewhere. > > Thank god. With your continued attitudes towards your own fellow > developers (e.g. that line above), not to mention denying user feedback > time after time (trace, for gods sake), someone probably will do that with > log4j itself RSN. > > Or someone already have? > > http://home.comcast.net/~pdegregorio/trace4j/trace4j-how-to.htm > > > | > | At 03:16 5/1/2005, Mark Womack wrote: > | >This is a spinoff of the discussion regarding slf4j and log4j. I > reviewed > | >Curt's email on the 1.2 branch changes, and I am building on some of > his > | >comments. > | > > | >I am not a member of the slf4j team, so I cannot speak to it's goals, > etc. > | >As a log4j committer I have no opposition to it being directly > | >implemented/supported in the log4j classes, however, I think that doing > | >that implementation in the log4j 1.2 branch at this point is premature. > | > > | >Even though slf4j inherits everything from the former log4j UGLI > | >interfaces, it seems to me that part of its reason for existence is to > | >foster some common, neutral area where the members of the Logging > Services > | >team, the JCL team, and others can work out whatever issues they felt > they > | >could not work out within the walls of Apache. As such, I expect that > | >there are going to be some number of changes to the base slf4j > | >framework. Looking at the slf4j list archives, those discussions have > yet > | >to really kick into gear. As Curt pointed out, slf4j has only existed > as > | >an entity for a couple of weeks. > | > > | >Given that, I don't think that the log4j project should provide an > | >official implementation of the slf4j interface until: > | > > | >1) There is an official release from the slf4j organization. Basing > our > | >official releases on a single slf4j beta release version is not good. > | > > | >2) There is demonstrated consensus from the slf4j organization. I want > | >some understanding that their (future) release version attains whatever > | >goals they have set and that they do not expect it to change > significantly > | >in the future. If this was an effort within Apache, trying to achieve > a > | >common interface/api, I would have the same requirements (though I > think > | >it would be easier, quite frankly). I use the word "consensus" because > I > | >expect there to be a group of developers deciding the slf4j fate. > | > > | >So, while I don't think we should allow an official release of either > | >log4j 1.2.X or 1.3 with slf4j changes until the criteria above are met, > I > | >do think that providing some kind of slf4j log4j implementation based > on > | >the current slf4j api would be fine. It should be a separate release > from > | >either of the log4j releases and it would be appropriately labeled as > | >"experimental" or whatever we want to call it. There would be an > | >understanding that we (log4j) support the slf4j effort and we are > working > | >with slf4j to provide an implementation, but that the work is in > | >progress. The work could be done on it's own branch. We can wrangle > | >through the details of implementation directly or an efficient facade. > I > | >still want to understand what slf4j means to the JCL. > | > > | >I support the slf4j effort, especially if it solves the issues we have > | >seen related to JCL. Rushing an implementation of it, even though > based > | >on the UGLI code that we know and love(d), is not right. Now it is > with a > | >group that is outside of ours, in what appears to be a exploratory > mode, > | >we have to take some care in that implementing it affects our log4j > | >api. Even once we release an official version, whatever form it takes, > if > | >there are changes to the slf4j api, it should be treated as any other > | >supported log4j feature. I certainly would not want to start doing many > | >mini-releases of log4j around api tweak changes in slf4j. That is why > I > | >want some assurance that the slf4j is "baked". > | > > | >I say "slf4j organization", but it is just wierd since everyone in that > | >"organization" is from log4j, and I suppose the JCL team(though I could > | >not find a list of committers for slf4j). It is still unclear to me > | >exactly why folks felt it had to move outside of Apache, but that is a > | >different discussion, and we are where we are. > | > > | >-Mark > | > > | > > | >--------------------------------------------------------------------- > | >To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > | >For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > | > | > > -- > Endre Stølsvik - [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Phone[+47 23308080] Mobile[+47 93054050] Fax[+47 23308099] > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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]
