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 Wed, 30 Jan 2002 19:36:43 GMT
Answer inline:

> -----Original Message-----
> From: robert burrell donkin [mailto:robertdonkin@mac.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2002 8:01 PM
>
> On Wednesday, January 30, 2002, at 01:47 PM, Berin Loritsch wrote:
>
> > Paulo Gaspar wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> >> My personal dislike on the commons process since mid December
> >> was the opposition to cross pollination just because of personal
> >> issues, AFAIK.
> >
> >
> > My observation as well.  Sad isn't it?
>
> i'm *REALLY* fed up with paulo's continual misrepresentation.

You sure waited a long time to "correct" me.


> paulo continues to display his ignorance of the origins of
> commons-logging.

Your argument was (and I am going to quote you yet again:

 > -----Original Message-----
 > From: robert burrell donkin [mailto:robertdonkin@mac.com]
 > Sent: Friday, January 11, 2002 7:44 PM
 > To: Jakarta Commons Developers List
 > Subject: Re: how should log levels work? [Was Re: [Logging] default log
 > level]
 >
 <SNIP />
 >
 > i've said before that i'd be very happy to consider your suggestion as a
 > 'second generation commons logging package' but anything with
 > peter's name
 > anywhere near it is too divisive for me to even consider as a first
 > generation solution.
 >
 > - robert

It is not clear to me that "anything with peter's name anywhere near it"
means anything else than a personal issue.


>   my personal issue with cross pollination from avalon into
> commons-logging
> is that using avalon was vetoed to death in the original debates.

Please help me to overcome my ignorance:
 - Was the veto on the cross-pollination?
 - Was the veto on learning anything from Avalon?
 - Was the veto on forking Avalon code?
 - Does that mean that you can not fork the code or at least read it
   and learn from it?

I mean, basically the Apache license allows me to use the Avalon code in
anyway I see fit, modifying it or not, even for commercial projects and
all if I just give credit to Apache ...

 ... but the Apache jakarta-commons project can not do the same???


> commons-logging was set up with a commitment to independence. if i was to
> add code from avalon, i would not only go against the expressed will of
> the commons but also against the expressed aims of commons-logging.

Sorry, I thought the aim was to have a common logging wrapper as usable
and robust as possible.

> as
> i've said many times, if paulo wanted to change those things, he should
> have made a proposal and put it to the vote.

I am no committer. I believe I could NOT do such thing.


> there is a big distinction between liking some and being willing to
> advocate it. i actually think that logkit is cool but i'm not willing to
> debate the merits of different logging systems and i'm certainly
> not going
> to act as an advocate for any particular one.

I am did not say anything about LogKit. The Avalon wrapper supports all
the "main" APIs - Log4J, LogKit and JSR 47 - remember?


> i think that i'm now finished wasting my time on this.

I though that the waste of time was ignoring prior art and reinventing
the wheel again.

That is the waste I would like to terminate.


> - robert


Have fun,
Paulo Gaspar


--
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