We are never going to release 2.0. A few of you keep wanting to continually
refactor and rename stuff is making things worse in my opinion. As I have
said before, a good example is that I find AbstractLogger to be a much better
name than AbstractLoggerProvider and think it was a mistake to rename it, but I
didn't speak up fast enough when it happened. We have over 100 Jira issues
that I would think would be far more productive to address then these silly
refactoring and renaming excercises.
Just leave the configuration syntax alone.
Sent from my iPad
> On Jun 2, 2014, at 10:48 PM, Gary Gregory <garydgreg...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Jun 2, 2014 at 11:54 PM, Remko Popma <remko.po...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> I wish everyone on the team would think of these things more in terms of
>> trade-offs.
>> What is the cost/benefit analysis of this change?
>>
>> Plus: one or two people on the team like this name better from an
>> aesthetical point of view (I don't see any functional benefit). That gets
>> some points, but not as many as a functional improvement would get.
>>
>> Minus: it breaks the configuration of existing users. That's a lot of minus
>> points to me.
>>
>> Times the number of affected people (both plus and minus)...
>>
>> And why are we even talking about this?
>
> Because I am a volunteer and I care about some things more than others, if
> other folks don't, that's fine too.
>
> Look at this as a trade-off of working in a FOSS environment ;-)
>
> Also, for a new major version, everything matters. This is really more like a
> version 1.0 of the reboot of a classic franchise. IMO, everything deserves
> special care as we'll have to live with it for a long time.
>
> This is why I've not been pushing for a release. I'd like to know as much of
> the code as possible. Check out all the nooks and crannies.
>
> I have great respect for the work Ralph has put in, it is a tremendous effort
> of high quality. But, it does not mean that it cannot benefit from reviews,
> spit, and polish.
>
> I think the community has grown and sees people come and go (where is Nick
> Williams BTW ;-) It is nice that we can benefit from various talents in
> different areas. We should take advantage of it all.
>
> I like the enthusiasm and work that Matt has recently put in for example.
> We've got a lot of talented people, let's take advantage of these volunteers
> and let them all flourish.
>
> Sure we might end up with more features, bells and whistles than are strictly
> needed, but hopefully and so far, the software is that much the better for
> it. And yes, we should all keep a diligent eye toward speed and memory, and
> all the usual good that comes from peer reviews.
>
> Cheers,
> Gary
>
>>
>> Sent from my iPhone
>>
>>> On 2014/06/03, at 10:28, Gary Gregory <garydgreg...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hm, why not adopt the same convention as Ant? It would be nicer IMO:
>>>
>>> <File id="MyAppender />
>>> <AppenderRef refid="MyAppender />
>>>
>>> Both attributes have "id" in their name so the connection is more obvious.
>>>
>>> Gary
>>>
>>>
>>>> On Mon, Jun 2, 2014 at 5:24 AM, Ralph Goers <rgo...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>> I think I agree with Remko. I think ref= is clearer.
>>>>
>>>> Sent from my iPad
>>>>
>>>>> On Jun 2, 2014, at 1:48 AM, Remko Popma <remko.po...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Hm, not sure. Two things:
>>>>>
>>>>> That would require our existing users to modify their configurations.
>>>>>
>>>>> Also, currently the "name" attribute provides an identifier for its
>>>>> element so that other elements can reference it. Isn't it clearer to have
>>>>> a different attribute when referring to another element? I think calling
>>>>> this attribute "ref" is very clear actually and I don't think having the
>>>>> same name for attributes that refer and attributes attributes that are
>>>>> being referred to is better.
>>>>>
>>>>> Sent from my iPhone
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 2014/06/02, at 15:46, Gary Gregory <garydgreg...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In the following:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> <File name="File" fileName="${filename}">
>>>>>> <PatternLayout>
>>>>>> <Pattern>${pattern}</Pattern>
>>>>>> </PatternLayout>
>>>>>> </File>
>>>>>> ...
>>>>>> <Loggers>
>>>>>> <Root level="Debug">
>>>>>> <AppenderRef ref="File" />
>>>>>> </Root>
>>>>>> </Loggers>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I propose to change:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> <AppenderRef ref="File" />
>>>>>>
>>>>>> to:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> <AppenderRef name="File" />
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It seems easier to read and connect these dots:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> <File name="File"
>>>>>> ...
>>>>>> <AppenderRef name="File" />
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thoughts?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Gary
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> E-Mail: garydgreg...@gmail.com | ggreg...@apache.org
>>>>>> Java Persistence with Hibernate, Second Edition
>>>>>> JUnit in Action, Second Edition
>>>>>> Spring Batch in Action
>>>>>> Blog: http://garygregory.wordpress.com
>>>>>> Home: http://garygregory.com/
>>>>>> Tweet! http://twitter.com/GaryGregory
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> E-Mail: garydgreg...@gmail.com | ggreg...@apache.org
>>> Java Persistence with Hibernate, Second Edition
>>> JUnit in Action, Second Edition
>>> Spring Batch in Action
>>> Blog: http://garygregory.wordpress.com
>>> Home: http://garygregory.com/
>>> Tweet! http://twitter.com/GaryGregory
>
>
>
> --
> E-Mail: garydgreg...@gmail.com | ggreg...@apache.org
> Java Persistence with Hibernate, Second Edition
> JUnit in Action, Second Edition
> Spring Batch in Action
> Blog: http://garygregory.wordpress.com
> Home: http://garygregory.com/
> Tweet! http://twitter.com/GaryGregory
