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 23:58:28 GMT
> He is very oppinionated, its true, but he *can* be convinced.  You just
> have to be persistent, and explain your thinking clearly.

I even think that Peter is easier to convince than Berin!!!
]:o)


Have fun,
Paulo


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Berin Loritsch [mailto:bloritsch@apache.org]
> Sent: Tuesday, January 29, 2002 11:05 PM
> To: Jakarta Commons Developers List
> Subject: Re: [Logging] [VOTE] Commons Logging 1.0 Release
>
>
> 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:
<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