commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Paulo Gaspar" <paulo.gas...@krankikom.de>
Subject RE: [Logging] [VOTE] Commons Logging 1.0 Release
Date Tue, 29 Jan 2002 23:37:27 GMT
> I don't want any credit for anything related to logging.  I want people
> who originated the ideas get credit for it.  And I learned quite a bunch
> of what I know about logging from Ceki.

I already noticed that Ceki and Peter look at each other's work...
...which is a Good Thing (TM).
=:o)

You find a lot of common ideas there. I also mentioned this before when
I pointed the Avalon wrapper and Ceki's proposal in December.

(This Ceki's proposal:
  http://jakarta.apache.org/log4j/docs/proposal.html
)


> Sorry, I never even noticed this one (which has nothing at all to do with
> its value, or whether it was first or not, yadda yadda).  Just out of
> curiousity, was this abstraction new as of the 1.1 check-in (10/31/2001),
> or did it get migrated from somewhere else in the code base?

I mentioned this A LOT in December. I repeated several times that the stuff
I
posted is from there. I even posted the package and the name of the CVS
repository.


Have fun,
Paulo Gaspar


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Craig R. McClanahan [mailto:craigmcc@apache.org]
> Sent: Tuesday, January 29, 2002 9:22 PM
> To: Jakarta Commons Developers List
> Subject: Re: [Logging] [VOTE] Commons Logging 1.0 Release
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, 29 Jan 2002, Berin Loritsch wrote:
>
> > Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2002 15:00:55 -0500
> > From: Berin Loritsch <bloritsch@apache.org>
> > 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
> >
> > Craig R. McClanahan wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > 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'm absolutely +1 on attribution, though, as long as its to
> both of them.
> >
> >
> > And you contributed to Avalon's logging abstraction how?
> >
>
> ???
>
> I don't want any credit for anything related to logging.  I want people
> who originated the ideas get credit for it.  And I learned quite a bunch
> of what I know about logging from Ceki.
>
> >
> >
> >
> > >>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.
> >
> >
> > That is what the Avalon Logging abstraction is all about.  I am
> not talking
> > about Avalon's LogKit.  I am talking about the interfaces and facades in
> > org.apache.avalon.framework.logging package.
> >
>
> Sorry, I never even noticed this one (which has nothing at all to do with
> its value, or whether it was first or not, yadda yadda).  Just out of
> curiousity, was this abstraction new as of the 1.1 check-in (10/31/2001),
> or did it get migrated from somewhere else in the code base?
>
> BTW, you might want to review the use of the "short form" Apache license
> in the Avalon sources.  Comments from PMC/Board folks in the past have
> been that only the long-form is appropriate.
>
> >
> >
> > > 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.
> >
> >
> > And nothing in the Avalon logging abstraction *requires* the
> developer to
> > use LogKit.
> >
>
> Craig
>
>
> --
> 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