Let's say that I'm just writing a piece of insight on it ;-). I think
writing code without thought is akin to getting married without
consciousness of who it is and where she lives ;-).
Op 16-8-2015 om 0:09 schreef Ralph Goers:
My plan is to write some code and then ask for feedback. That seems to
have worked well for us in the past.
Sent from my iPad
On Aug 15, 2015, at 8:36 AM, Gary Gregory <garydgreg...@gmail.com
<mailto:garydgreg...@gmail.com>> wrote:
On Sat, Aug 15, 2015 at 4:38 AM, Xen <x...@dds.nl <mailto:x...@dds.nl>>
wrote:
<snip>
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.
<snip>
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.
<snip>
I think we are also in limbo so to speak as to what to do WRT
providing a programmatic interface for configuration. We have factory
methods, a few builder classes, but probably not a clear road map. We
all need to think about the big picture before we continue sprinkling
builder classes all over the place.
Should such an API be part of the Core or a new log4j-config module
where all configuration code would sit? We probably still do not want
it as part of the public API? Should the config API aim to configure
the Core or any supported logging back-end? Surely we would only
start with the Core and worry about the rest later. Or should we? I'm
asking a lot of questions I know.
How do we even discuss this via emails? That's a lot of writing! Is
there are better way to discuss this instead?
Gary
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 <x...@dds.nl
<mailto:x...@dds.nl>> 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: garydgreg...@gmail.com <mailto:garydgreg...@gmail.com>
| ggreg...@apache.org <mailto:ggreg...@apache.org>
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
--
E-Mail: garydgreg...@gmail.com <mailto:garydgreg...@gmail.com> |
ggreg...@apache.org <mailto:ggreg...@apache.org>
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
