on 8/1/01 7:42 AM, "Paulo Gaspar" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I sure would like (for completely selfish reasons) that Jon would use
> his (abundant) energy and knowledge in a more constructive way giving
> this kind of input. Things like:
>>>> Show me the Gump logs that proves it was more recent than 2
> months ago.
> do not add anything to what I know and do not help on understanding
> when and why I am wrong.
>
>
> Thanks a lot,
> Paulo Gaspar
Paulo,
You keep assuming yourself that I'm trying to be unhelpful when in fact, I'm
trying to be very helpful to you.
The problem is that I incorrectly assumed that since you are on at least two
*developer* mailing lists that I know of (velocity-dev and tomcat-dev),
including to responding to a message with the titled "[GUMP] Build Failure -
Velocity]", that you would have had an understanding of what Gump is doing
or would have been able to at least express that you didn't know what Gump
was.
>> Ok, so if we make a dependency on Log4J today knowing that in the future,
>> Log4J will support the Java Logging API, what the heck is the difference?
>
> And do you really _know_ that?
> Before the API is out, I think that is presuming too much.
Once again, I do have facts to support my claim. Ceki has stated in several
public and non-public forums that Log4J will support the Java API for
logging. He has gone as far is creating a document which describes the
differences between the two and has been advising the Log4J JSR spec lead on
how to make the JSR better.
For starters, read:
<http://jakarta.apache.org/log4j/docs/critique.html>
<http://jakarta.apache.org/log4j/docs/critique2.html>
Thanks,
-jon
