ant-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Peter Donald <dona...@apache.org>
Subject Re: [Vote] Logging
Date Wed, 09 May 2001 06:44:21 GMT
At 11:12  8/5/01 -0700, Jon Stevens wrote:
>on 5/8/01 8:04 PM, "Peter Donald" <donaldp@apache.org> wrote:
>
>> turbine has more lines of code than logkits core, is a custom system, has
>> not had anywhere near the same level of testing as either log4j or logkit.
>> You just reinvent a new logging toolkit inside turbine - sounds smart.
>
>Peter, now you are making shit up. Go look at the code.

I did looked at last CVS version I had (mid April mod date) ... 

and I did a line count for logging service vs logkit ... 
Turbine: 5683
LogKit: 2649 

And if I were to do a hersch (sp?) analysis which do you think would come
out as simpler ... hmmmmm

>> yer - 1 time in close to two years it changed in a backward incompatible
>> and I patched velocity for you. If you notice
>
>Huh? That isn't true at all. We have had to fix the LogKit related code at
>least two times now.

That was not a change I made - Fede made some changes as part of proposal
and I backed em out  few weeks later - unfortunately you were in that
window. (I Assume you mean getting log targets via URLs). IIRC it was
marked as trial code and grabbing it from an alpha proposal is always
frought with risks.

>> grow up. Log4j has always been a moving target until recently with it's 1.x
>> release. LogKit has only once broken backwards compatibility - both have
>> been around for around 1.5-2 years? So you do the figures -- ooh guess
>> which one comes in as more stable?
>
>Log4J.

riiiiight. You are a bundle of logic aren't you - ask Ceki which he thinks
has been more stable over lifetime - should be interesting to see what he
saids - no?

>> so - people want to add if/while to ant, people want to incroporate return
>> values from targets, people want to do all sorts of things. Luckily
>> 
>>>> People build toolkits to be reused - could you imagine everytime you
wanted
>>>> use JDOM you had to create a wrapper around it - and make it generic
enough
>>>> that it fit other similar toolkits. Stupid - yes I would have to agree.
>>> 
>>> Huh?
>>> 
>>> What the heck do you think JAXP (or the proposed Logging API) is for?
>> 
>> It has nothing to do with JDOM ;)
>
>And JDOM has nothing to do with Log4J or LogKit. So, why did you bring it
>up? 

Like logkit JDOM is a part that is unlikely to have pluggable
implementations - analogous to the Logging JSR and LogKit... like the vast
majority of jdk really. But then again everyone else did it wrong - only
you know the "one true way" right ?

>Grow up.

;) awww ... this looks like it is gonna be fun

>>> People like the ability to swap out their XML parser
>> 
>> because some ofthem have different implementation strategies - something
>> which is not the case with logging.
>
>Huh? Log4J and Logkit have two different implementation strategies.

nope they are not. The are practically the same strategy - they even
synchronized names (latest change to avalon synched to log4j) or added
features that were in other toolkit (log4j added filters, delyed event
serialization to end etc).

The difference is essentially that log4j offers *more* features and it has
evolved rather than being built once off (and thus has accumulated a lot of
cruft). I suggest you go read both toolkits and perhaps logging JSR as you
should know what you are talking about if you are going to try to make
claims like this.

>>> (and logging implementation) at will without needing to re-write their
>> application.
>> 
>> yer - right. Yet to see that. People like to swap things in and out when
>> there is different implementation strategies or a generic way of specifying
>> features. Logging toolkits are unlikely to have either - they merrily have
>> pluggable backends (appenders/logtargets/formatters/whatever).
>
>Nope. You are wrong.

valid use case?

>> So again - what advantage do you see in duplicating the work in ant that
>> exists in other projects?
>
>So, then why do we have two logging systems? Lets get rid of LogKit and
>focus on Log4J.

Why not the reverse? LogKit has been at Apache longer, is more stable etc
;) While we are at it we may aswell throw away turbine because we have
struts, lets also throw away velocity as we have jsp.

I will do it if you will. Then again I don't really expect you to believe
in your own "logic" so I guess it is a safe bet for me.

Cheers,

Pete

*-----------------------------------------------------*
| "Faced with the choice between changing one's mind, |
| and proving that there is no need to do so - almost |
| everyone gets busy on the proof."                   |
|              - John Kenneth Galbraith               |
*-----------------------------------------------------*


Mime
View raw message