commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Berin Loritsch <>
Subject Re: [Logging] [VOTE] Commons Logging 1.0 Release
Date Tue, 29 Jan 2002 22:05:00 GMT
Remy Maucherat wrote:

>>However, if you guys tried to work with us from the outset, much of this
>>confusion would never have risen.
> Maybe at that time we *didn't* want to work together for some very specific
> reasons. After all, the original commons proposal, which I was part of,
> was -1ed only by Peter, because we apparently had diverging opinions about
> how shared code should be governed.
> Given the number of components in the commons, I think it has been quite
> successful with its goals, and it did abide by its basic principles
> (openness, bazaar style repository, extremely few external dependencies, no
> imposed coding style, etc etc).

Hmmm.   Remy, I have to say this sounds quite petty.

> I'm also greatly disturbed by the timing and the ferocity of your
> complaints. AFAIK, nobody here did invent the facade pattern or the Logger
> interface (or whatever you choose to call it). It seems Rodney came up with
> something similar to LogKit by accident.

Timing maybe, ferocity?  If you think that is ferocity, then you haven't
had any kind of debate yet.

Seriously though, if I had known that this project was started before we had
our own Logger abstraction, I could have championed the cause for Avalon.
As it is now, we can't very well go back and deprecate yet again what is
supposed to be a stable API.

By choosing not to work with us openly, you have kept the Avalon community
from the benefits of your work.  All for a seemingly petty reason.  I have
dealt with Peter on a number of occasions, and I really appreciate the guy.
He is very oppinionated, its true, but he *can* be convinced.  You just
have to be persistent, and explain your thinking clearly.

The "I 'tried' and gave up" attitude is bad.

> Now, if all you want is some credit for "being there", then so be it, you
> have it :) You just could have asked it a lot sooner and in a lot nicer way.

Sooner, no.  Nicer way, possibly.

> Scott added that: "That is the past.  This is the present, and I WANT Avalon
> and commons to work in harmony, not dischord."
> Well, maybe, but the present still reminds me of the past a lot :-(
> Hopefully, that's the last time it happens.

Well, perhaps we can both get over ourselves and just move on.  I'm willing
to burry the hatchet if you are.  However, I *don't* like when projects that
can work together disassociate because of petty reasons.  If there are *real*
technical reasons, I can appreciate it.


"They that give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety
  deserve neither liberty nor safety."
                 - Benjamin Franklin

To unsubscribe, e-mail:   <>
For additional commands, e-mail: <>

View raw message