avalon-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Peter Donald <dona...@apache.org>
Subject Re: Question on LogKit
Date Wed, 20 Jun 2001 10:11:06 GMT
On Wed, 20 Jun 2001 19:36, Ceki Gülcü wrote:
> >Velocity, XSP and JSP all do the same thing aswell. They have different
> >strengths and weaknesses whichs is why people like the choice.
> As far as I know, Velocity and Turbine wrap log4j. I do not know about XSP.
> There are two tag libraries that give JSP pages access to log4j
> functionality.

I don't think you understand what I am saying. Velocity is a web presentation 
layer as is JSP and XSP (XML Server Pages). Each have different strategies of 
implementation and different levels of separation. Many would argue that 
Velocity is the best because it forces you to use good practices, others like 
jsp because it is a standard and still others would choose XSP because they 
want to produce XML (or a site with multiple output formats).

> Yes, LogKit is faster in certain cases. In shipped code, when logging
> is turned off entirely, log4j is just as fast. In other cases, it is
> slower but in the nanosecond scale. In compensation log4j offers
> powerful inheritance features.

LogKit offers the same inheritance features with exception of additivity 
(mainly as I have never seen a need for it). Instead of paying for this with 
a speedhit every time you choose to log, Logkit makes you pay it once (at 
configuration time).

Besides which - I NEVER turn off logging completely in any products I 
distribute. In the words from the whitepaper "it can provide valuable 
operational data that allows administrators to diagnose problems as they 
arise." Even in production systems faults occur and I still need logging to 
occur (usually it is directed to native syslog in these cases though).

> >> You have chosen to continue to develop LogKit because you think you
> >> can do a better job. That is your prerogative. In the process, you
> >> have copied from log4j without contributing back. I do not think this
> >> honors you. We innovate, you copy. This is similar to what Sun is
> >> doing except that they do it at a slower pace. You do it from the
> >> inside which makes it all the more aggravating.
> >
> >Thats an interesting perspective. I seem to remember a few features that
> >Log4j aquired that look remarkably similar to features in LogKit. I am
> >willing to bet that Log4j doesn't have my name in credits anywhere.
> What acquired features are you referring to? I have never ever used
> the work of others without permission. I confess that most of the
> innovations in log4j were contributed by the log4j community, not by me.

I am not sure who added it but after I described some of the features that I 
saw as lacking in Log4j they started to appear in it. From a quick glance at 
the source these were Filters, delayed serialization of events, type safe 
enums for priority, dynamic reconfiguration capabilities etc. 

When you accused me of being dishonorable via "In the process, you have 
copied from log4j without contributing back. I do not think this honors you. 
We innovate, you copy." I assumed you meant I had stolen ideas. I can't see 
how that is any different from what you have done. To be honest I think I 
have "stolen" less ideas than you - just a few names.

If however you are not accusing me of stealing ideas but instead of violating 
copyright then that is another thing altogether. I would like to see 
substantiated evidence that this has been the case for I do not apreciate 



| "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               |

To unsubscribe, e-mail: avalon-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: avalon-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org

View raw message