> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jon Stevens [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Wednesday, August 01, 2001 5:03 PM
>
> You keep assuming yourself that I'm trying to be unhelpful when
> in fact, I'm trying to be very helpful to you.
Jon, I can believe that. That is why I pointed Jason and Sam postings as
examples of the kind of feedback that helps me.
I am not talking about your intentions but about your methods.
I already learned a lot from you, but you could make it easier.
=;o)
> 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.
As explained in my previous posting, I understand what GUMP does, but maybe
not with enough detail. Because of the problems I had and the changes in the
LogKit API, I thought that there was some GUMP configuration for Velocity
that made it use the Velocity's local "log.jar" copy.
On the subject of this thread... well, the title is not matching the real
subject. We (I) should have changed the subject long ago.
> >> 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>
I agree that it looks like the standard API is going to be closer
to Log4J's. But it is still a fast moving target.
Thanks for the links. Very interesting.
Have fun,
Paulo Gaspar
