> At 08:33 PM 6/11/2001 Greg Davis wrote:
> >I've noticed an incredible amount of inertia from people who
> don't know a lot
> >about logging but know they need it. The comments usually go
> something like:
> >
> > "Why should I use <other logging package> when there is a
> > logging package in JDK1.4".
>
> I've had to deal a bit with that... I've had a fair amount of criticism
> regarding my logging design+implementation (which wraps log4j) by other's
> in my company who feel I should have used the "standard" logging service.
> My response is generally along the lines of "Just because it's a standard
> doesn't make it good". I stand by my decision to use log4j...
I don't know how many times I have had to use the "Just because it's a
standard doesn't make it good" phrase. I have had to fight against EJB and
JSP and other "standard" on several projects. What is unfortunate about this
the most is, landing projects can be difficult because management wants to
use "standard" and for good reason. They don't want to get stuck with some
implementation that only the developer can understand. This is the nice
thing with open source at least. I can point to a project and say, it has
lots of support and lots of people are using, but sometimes this does not
stand up to the "use the standard" argument". It all boils down to "use the
standard or don't get the job". In the current market, I don't get to be
very choosy... I have to take what scraps I can get.
The interesting thing now is that Java has grown to the point where I'm
arguing one Java implementation against another... not to long ago the sales
pitch was mainly use Java vs. fill_in_the_blank
-david
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
