commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From robert burrell donkin <robertburrelldon...@blueyonder.co.uk>
Subject Re: [logging] Enterprise Common Logging... dare we say 2.0?
Date Tue, 21 Dec 2004 18:51:58 GMT

On 21 Dec 2004, at 15:05, Ceki Gülcü wrote:

> At 10:31 PM 12/20/2004, robert burrell donkin wrote:
>
>> IIRC we're never really gone for official consultations here at 
>> apache (or at least the bits i've been involved with): too much 
>> committee, too little community. i alerted ceki (who i've know and 
>> respected for too many years even though we don't always agree) soon 
>> after i discovered this thread and hoped that other interested folks 
>> from the logging project.
>>
>> jakarta commons has a slightly different focus and expertise. we're 
>> more interested in bricks (small, compact reusable components with 
>> minimal dependencies) than logging systems. the extensions proposed 
>> by richard would allow components with enhanced logging requirements 
>> (such as i18nable messages) to be added to the commons.
>>
>> so, in many ways it doesn't matter whether existing logging systems 
>> offer these capabilities or not: what matters is whether there is a 
>> need for this kind of enhanced logging for the kind of bricks built 
>> by the jakarta commons. it's good people that logging experts have 
>> shown up to the party but (so long as a need for this exists), the 
>> party would have happened anyway.
>
> Official consultations at Apache might be a drag, but the last time I
> checked, Jakarta Commons was part of the Apache Software Foundation. It
> might not be a concern to this group, but keep in mind that the ASF
> frowns upon mission-creep.

now it's getting political :(

in many ways, i'd prefer to take your original advice and keep things 
technical: scope can be considered later. not a single line of code has 
been committed and no binding decisions have been taken. i agree with 
noel that we should address the technical issues first.

(i'm now probably going to start preaching to the gallery since you're 
probably already well aware of my views. those who are uninterested in 
politics should stop reading now.)

i'm very aware (maybe more than most) that the ASF has been frowning 
very strongly at jakarta (in general) and commons (in particular) for 
several years. we are very vunerable (both jakarta and commons) because 
we have (proportionally) very few members and so very few advocates at 
the ASF level but this awareness has also produced some strengths: we 
are very aware of issues of scope and aware that we are under scrutiny 
from the board and members. we have no voice and so the only way we can 
demonstrate that the commons is worthwhile is by our actions. we take 
scope seriously (many would argue: too seriously). we take our legal 
duties very seriously. so far, we've managed this whilst retaining a 
sense of community. i feel this is an achievement.

though at some times it feels like we committers are becoming second 
class citizens in the ASF community, the board (whatever some people 
say) has proved time and again that it still believes in communities 
and committers. here in the commons, we have a healthy community and 
that matters. so, all things being equal, having the disapproval of the 
logging project really isn't something that worries me at all providing 
that the decisions taken are right ones for the community.

community is the primary measure against which scope should be judged. 
JCL deals with the particular logging needs of bricks. it is therefore 
in scope for both the jakarta commons (which deals with bricks) and the 
logging project (which deals with logging). the community is here which 
is why JCL elected to stay. IIRC there were no questions raise by 
members or the board about the decision of the community on this 
matter.

> No doubt that your party would have happened without the participation
> of LS. Unfortunately, LS often gets stuck cleaning up after your party
> ends.

matters of scope are less important than matters of community. if 
strong community backing emerges  then the scope issues can easily be 
solved. if no community emerges then matters of scope will become 
irrelevant.

- robert

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


Mime
View raw message