That doesn't really mean anything. I'm just saying that today feedback
might be handy instead of that neediness.
Sorry to say, but I have an interest in this project as well of course,
and If I seem rude, it's just because I want things to be clear for me
and for you as well. Maybe that is presumptuous or out of my league or
anything of that kind -- can't find a better word right now.
Maybe you'd consider that outrageous, I don't know, but to get back:.
I am writing these emails to help you /SAVE/ time because I think and
feel and know that if you do /ineffective things/ you will in the end
not have spent your time well. You might be "effectively" be spending
your time on a disaster course, to put it real bluntly, it's not what I
mean. You might be effectively doing something that in the end doesn't
really work out. Then your "effective time spent" will still have been
very ineffectively spent. You'd agree with that, right?.
You wouldn't want to be spending your time on some effort and in the end
all this time or most of it would have gone to waste because a few years
down the road you run into a problem (such as lack of uptake/enthusiasm)
and you can't understand why people are not using your program and in
the end there were some things you didn't understand at the time.... it
could be right? .... and you may find you need to revamp a whole lot
because it is starting to dawn on you.
I know I am being offensive, I can't find a better way to express myself
about this.. pardon my mind and my illness.
Currently I /can't/ work on Log4J because I have supplied a patch or at
least a request for comments on the Jira and I haven't had any feedback
on that. So how am I supposed to "go ahead and do stuff?". Okay it was
also because for a few days my emails didn't get through.
So you're basically criticising my lack of "do-ocracy lovingness" but
I've spent at least a number of hours coding and exploring and I just
haven't had the feedback yet to go on, to do something else.
The code is sitting there in my Git folder and I don't know what to do
with it, I can't commit it or push it I'd have to fork on Github or
whatever. This is due to my newness with open source versioning control.
I have asked in one of my emails whether there was a need for additional
Builder classes. I got no response to that, so I went ahead and devised
one of my own that I think would be handy, the most obvious one. I
supplied a Jira (and sent an email, but it didn't get through) and now
I'm just still in limbo.
Then I spend the time in between to give feedback on what you are doing
and how you are doing it, and from what I see that is effective and what
is not effective, and I say some things about it. But most people in
open source do not consider thinking about effectiveness to be an
effective way to spend your time, and I guess you are the same.
And how should I know about your family and how you choose to spend your
time? If you have obligations you don't want, that's none of my business.
I have an illness that basically takes a lot of time from me and causes
me not to be able to have or hold or try to get any kind of job, nor can
I finish my studies. That is also none of your business, the way it is
stated.
If you can't spend the time reflecting on your endeavours and your
efforts, well that is your problem not mine. And you also should not ask
me to make it my problem -- that you don't have time for that.
I am giving the pristinely helpful advice to not go /begging/ yes
BEGGING for affection from other open source teams. That is basically
what Gary (And yes I am overreaching my bounds, because I do not know
any of you yet) (or still) (or whatever) and I am taking the liberty to
call you by first name as if I know you. Hurt me for it. Please do.
That's basically what mr. Gregory is trying to do. I am just saying it
might not be as pristinely helpful to do it. To do that. I know I am
interfering with your business - what am I to it?..
But this is a pubic mailing list and I guess that's the nature of things.
So sorry if I seem to be wasting my time on this. I guess I am, but that
depends on how welcome or effective it is in getting something through
or making someone happy, so to say.
I'm just a sorry figure that can't do anything in life. I have no skills
and no abilities, I try to learn some and I fail.
a) I am asking you to solve a specific problem but the specific problem
is the architectural problem of the dissinuation of API and Core. Lol.
New word. You can feel what it means I guess. The problem is that I had
to spend ample amounts of time just to get through the barrier of
learning ANYthing about what was hiding behind that public API. This is
a real problem and a documentation issue at the same time. You can't
really expect any new user to go through all of this effort or pain just
to get acquainted with the system. I am spending MY time such that the
NEXT user will not have to deal with that as I have. The core-api
separation is a problem in that it tries to dissuade, by its very
nature, the user of even /Learning/ about the core, when the core is
very much vital to the operation of the machine if you want to have it
your way. In other words, I do not consider the API as it is presented
(the public face) to be anything any regular user should have to contend
with or feel happy about. Hard words perhaps, after all it is your love
and brainchild. But I was left in the dark, and it was cold. And it took
me studying the source of ConfigurationFactory (mostly) to begin to
understand how I could get the system to effectively do what I want. So
that public API that is meant to make life easier and to shield people
from difficult things actually makes life much more difficult the moment
that public API is not enough, and it would really be "not enough" for
most people if they are true to themselves. By making it a black and
white proposition you are forcing people to do much more work than if
the separation (the shielding) had not been made in the first place. So
effectively, you might even say.....
Let's call it a time-waster.
Let's just say you have failed in your goal to design something that
would make a user be content with what the public API was offering and
hence create a condition in which that user would not need to reach for
the Core API. This is not the fact. This is not the case. I'm saying it
is not the case that an average user will not want to reach beyond the
public API. I'm saying you failed in that.
Pretty immensely I must say.
I am saying that you have shielded the (new) user so much that he/she
feels he is getting shielded from the stuff he needs. And I'm saying
that this may be (and is) one of the reasons that people are not all too
enthusiast of getting on the bandwagon because people sense this.
What you claim as advantage is only 50% advantage and it is 50%
disadvantage. The API is meant to remain consistent between
(major/minor) versions but now you are already thinking of getting to a
version 3 that will change the public API. So where has been the benefit
of the public API? Has the core changed so much? It was only a short
time ago that you was still with version 1.2, I believe.
I mean sorry if I'm being rough but I also don't have the time to be
nicer than this, I have better things to do also.
I have no stats of course on usage numbers and perhaps neither do you I
don't know. From what I hear and see there are still very many people on
the older version. They would want to upgrade but really they don't.
There is something or multiple things holding them back, which makes the
time required (that you speak of) a bad investment. For what would be
the benefits? There are really none?....
You are wondering why, or you are asking people to upgrade, but the
investment seems to simply not pay off. It has a bad RoI.
Me, I am even wondering, as a new user, whether 1.2 would not have been
a better choice. I sense that there are some... less pretty things to
1.2 that would hold me off. There are probably some things that really
preferred an improvement or change, I don't know. I sense that you
yourselves are not entirely happy with what you ended up with. You feel
it, you know it. You can keep up the pretense (because you can't let
people know you have second thoughts) (or they'd think: if /they/ are
not even happy, how could we be?) but everyone feels it and in the end
that determines your success. It's not what you say, but what you do.
And if you are unhappy with something people will know it regardless,
whether you say it or not? So why not just publicly say it? At least
then you'll be understood and people will understand you and you will
move VASTLY closer to a solution or resolution in almost NO TIME AT ALL.
Sorry for the caps.
I am saying that admitting to your own flaws (as the way I should as
well... ?.) puts you in the position where they start to evaporate
almost instantly. The moment you step into real communication with your
'customers' those customers will stop staying at a distance and you and
they will move closer to each other, both, very rapidly. That's just the
way it works. That's what counselling is meant for. Maybe I'm an
unwanted or unwelcome counsellor, so be it ;-).
Op 15-8-2015 om 2:27 schreef Ralph Goers:
Bart, We spent over 2 years asking for feedback during which we had
13 releases prior to the GA release. We changed, many, many things.
While you are free to criticize Log4j 2 it really doesn’t accomplish
much unless you provide concrete detail on what should be changed and
then expend some effort to do that.
Projects in the Apache Software Foundation are run by what is
affectionately called a “do-ocracy” - If you see something broken you
fix it, if there is a feature you want you create it. Creating Jira
issues and posting emails is great but in the end doesn’t accomplish
much if no one does anything about it. Everyone who works on Apache
projects is a volunteer. We do it because we choose to and because we
want to, not because we have to.
The bottom line is that I have a day job that takes more than 40 hours
per week of my time. I have a family that requires my attention. I
want to write code and solve people’s problems when I have the time to
work on Log4j. I simply don’t have time to read long emails that a)
don’t ask me how to solve a specific problem, b) don’t ask for a
specific feature to be implemented, c) don’t ask me how to explain how
something works or d) don’t say “What can I do to help”.
Please don’t take responses to you as people being rude. Please take
them as we are all busy and want to use our time effectively.
Ralph
On Aug 14, 2015, at 3:02 PM, Xen <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
I just think... trying to persuade people like that is very needy.
Ralph (Goers) doesn't give me the impression like he's needy like
that ;-).
It is clear that the new version is a bit out of tune with the goals
these other projects might have. The requirements for a logging
package should be a lowest common denominator thing. If the product
is good, the other projects should notice anyway and take notice
themselves. I would focus on documentation and clarity. You're a bit
at odds with the times I think. Do you have the interests of your
users in mind, or of someone else? That's what makes it hard to give
a recommendation because it's just impossible. I mean "to become more
popular". If you feel the need to advertize or say "hey, don't forget
about us" so badly, that just means....
Well anybody can figure that out for himself I guess. But I was
looking at a topic called Update trunk to Java 7 from last May and it
didn't seem like their was an urgent need to do so.
Well it means you are on the wrong tract or not feeling confident.
Maybe you really feel like you need a call for attention, but.... ...
.. . . . . .. .....
Everybody already knows you lol. Your name is well-known. It just
seems like everyone is stuck using 1.2. Stuckerdiestuckstuckstuck.
You might want to send out for an honest appraisal or feedback.
Ask the question of whether Log4J 2 meets their goals. Ask the
question of whether 2.3 meets or met their goals. Ask the question of
whether 2.4 meets or will meet their goals. Ask what they want from a
logging package. Don't forget to mention the issues: Java 7. Public
vs. Core -- do they like that? Are they impressed by a separation of
public versus implementation API? If they have experience with the
product, do they feel the need to use Core functionality that is not
normally directly accessible from Public?. Did they feel their needs
were respected when the move to 2 was made? Do they feel the EOL of
v1 has been a necessary or required or helpful thing?. What are their
needs and interests? How do they feel about having to use two jars? I
would seriously consider asking these questions, all of them.
So don't ask for uptake, ask for feedback. I think that is the best
suggestion or advice I can offer. Ask them whether you are on the
right path. Ask this of your fellow Apache projects. Do that and you
will do well, or better, in the future. If such a thing as 'better'
would exist, but you can always do better than what you were before.
And that's true of everyone everywhere. That's just true of life.
Regards, B.
Op 14-8-2015 om 23:34 schreef Gary Gregory:
Something to think about after we get 2.4 out the door...
Do you think it appropriate for us to do some kind of outreach to
other Apache projects and say "hey, about about use log4j 2?"
Gary
--
E-Mail: [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> |
[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
Java Persistence with Hibernate, Second Edition
<http://www.manning.com/bauer3/>
JUnit in Action, Second Edition <http://www.manning.com/tahchiev/>
Spring Batch in Action <http://www.manning.com/templier/>
Blog: http://garygregory.wordpress.com
<http://garygregory.wordpress.com/>
Home: http://garygregory.com/
Tweet! http://twitter.com/GaryGregory
