commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Scott Sanders" <ssand...@nextance.com>
Subject RE: [Logging] [VOTE] Commons Logging 1.0 Release
Date Tue, 29 Jan 2002 20:02:40 GMT
Inline.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Craig R. McClanahan [mailto:craigmcc@apache.org] 
> Sent: Tuesday, January 29, 2002 11:46 AM
> To: Jakarta Commons Developers List
> Subject: RE: [Logging] [VOTE] Commons Logging 1.0 Release
> 
> On Tue, 29 Jan 2002, Scott Sanders wrote:
> 
> > Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2002 11:27:23 -0800
> > From: Scott Sanders <ssanders@nextance.com>
> > Reply-To: Jakarta Commons Developers List 
> > <commons-dev@jakarta.apache.org>
> > To: Jakarta Commons Developers List <commons-dev@jakarta.apache.org>
> > Subject: RE: [Logging] [VOTE] Commons Logging 1.0 Release
> >
> > Berin, I think that I understand how you feel, and although the 
> > abstraction was implemented outside of Avalon, I do believe that 
> > Avalon should be attributed in some way, because it ended 
> up being so 
> > close.
> >
> 
> If you read back through the COMMONS-DEV discussions, I'd say 
> that the commons logging API started out closer to Log4j than 
> it did to LogKit, and during the development sycle morphed 
> towards what was obviously a good idea :-).

I am looking into this now.  I think that this is the proper impl, which
is why the Avalon and commons are so close.

> 
> I'm absolutely +1 on attribution, though, as long as its to 
> both of them.

I would agree.  Wasn't Ceki also involved when he created Log4jME?

> 
> > What can we do to make this better?  The biggest difference 
> that I see 
> > is that commons-logging is trying to be super small.  I 
> want to talk 
> > this out before I give my +1 on the release.  I am willing 
> to try and 
> > make this better.
> >
> 
> In particular, commons-logging *only* wants to be a facade 
> (rather than providing anything other than a basic System.out 
> logging implementation itself), where LogKit's white paper 
> explicitly describes the Avalon team's need to go beyond that.

+1 Of course they are both influenced by Log4j AND Avalon.

> 
> I'm glad there is more than one choice in logging frameworks 
> in the world, with differing feature sets and philosophies.  
> I just want to avoid having a Commons component that wants to 
> do logging (such as Digester or
> BeanUtils) dictating to an application that it *must* use 
> exactly one of them, whether it wants to or not.  That should 
> be the choice of the developer who is using the commons 
> components, or the sysadmin deploying the application into a 
> production environment already based on one of them.

Yes.

> 
> > I am -0 until I can see completely where Berin is coming from.
> >
> > Scott Sanders
> >
> 
> Craig
> 
> 
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Berin Loritsch [mailto:bloritsch@apache.org]
> > > Sent: Tuesday, January 29, 2002 11:28 AM
> > > To: Jakarta Commons Developers List
> > > Subject: Re: [Logging] [VOTE] Commons Logging 1.0 Release
> > >
> > >
> > > Craig R. McClanahan wrote:
> > >
> > > > We've refined the commons-logging APIs, and documented the
> > > mechanics.
> > > > In addition, I've heard from numerous people on various
> > > projects that
> > > > would like to use these APIs, but are hesitant to do so
> > > without a 1.0
> > > > release.
> > > >
> > > > Therefore, I'd like to now propose that we do a 1.0 
> release of the 
> > > > commons-logging package, based on the current contents 
> of the CVS 
> > > > repository for this package.  I will volunteer to act 
> as release 
> > > > manager, following the standard process for Commons packages:
> > > >
> > > >   http://jakarta.apache.org/commons/releases.html
> > > >
> > > > ----- CUT HERE -----
> > > > [ ] +1  I support the release of Commons Logging 1.0 and
> > > will help [ ]
> > > > +0  I support the release, but cannot help [ ] -0  I am not
> > > in favor
> > > > of the release [ ] -1  I am opposed to this release, and here's 
> > > > why (attach reasons)
> > > > ----- CUT HERE -----
> > >
> > >
> > > -1
> > >
> > >
> > > How many logger abstractions do we need?  Avalon has a perfectly 
> > > good one. (I am not a committer on commons though...).
> > >
> > > It looks like a direct rip off of the Avalon logger 
> abstraction, and 
> > > despite the work that Peter Donald and I put into it, we get no 
> > > mention.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > >
> > > "They that give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary 
> > > safety
> > >   deserve neither liberty nor safety."
> > >                  - Benjamin Franklin
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> > > <mailto:commons-dev-> unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org>
> > > For
> > > additional commands,
> > > e-mail: <mailto:commons-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org>
> > >
> > >
> >
> > --
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail:   
> <mailto:commons-dev-> unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org>
> > For 
> additional commands, 
> e-mail: 
> > <mailto:commons-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org>
> >
> >
> 
> 
> 
> --
> To unsubscribe, e-mail:   
> <mailto:commons-dev-> unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org>
> For 
> additional commands, 
> e-mail: <mailto:commons-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org>
> 
> 

--
To unsubscribe, e-mail:   <mailto:commons-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:commons-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org>


Mime
View raw message