commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Ceki Gülcü <c...@qos.ch>
Subject Re: [logging] distribution packaging
Date Tue, 08 Mar 2005 14:39:22 GMT

Brian,

 From a cursory look at your document, I have to *speculate* that the
changes you describe do not solve the core flaws in JCL but merely
hide them by falling back on java.util.logging. However, I am only
*speculating* as I have not had a chance to study your document with
the care that it deserves.

After careful study of JCL, I am convinced that JCL is broken beyond
hope. While its interfaces can be salvaged, its implementation must be
thrown away entirely. While this opinion is not popular around here,
it is based on verifiable facts, not wishful thinking that does not
survive critical scrutiny.

I was very surprised to discover that several voting participants in
JCL are more concerned about covering their political asses rather
than verifiable facts. Until this day, JCL developers have not
acknowledged the fatal flaws in their software. The talk always has
been about "corner cases" even if the problems faced by users are
frequent and manifestly major. The JCL wiki still qualifies my past
analysis as FUD [1].

Many of us are drawn to open source for the love of writing good
software. As any engineering discipline, software development has its
roots in scientific methodology, where one hopes that verifiable
facts prime over petty political considerations. It seems to me that
when someone comes with verifiable facts, the right attitude is to
acknowledge the facts rather than try to ignore or ridicule them.

We all make mistakes. However, in technical branches, we have the
luxury of experimentation. When facts debunk our beliefs, we can
either rise to the occasion and rectify those false beliefs or ignore
the facts and plow on to until the facts catch up with us.

In late 1999, National Magazine published an article about a newly
discovered Archaeoraptor fossil, calling it "a true missing link"
demonstrating the relation between birds and dinosaurs, supposedly
bringing to conclusion a debate raging since the 1860s.

When XU XING, a Chineese palaeontologist, declared that the
"missing-link" fossil acquired by National Geographic was a fake, the
illustrious magazine rechecked their facts and admitted their mistake.
They had invested considerably in the article and had already checked
their facts.  However, when XU XING's message arrived, they did not
summarily dismiss it or ridicule his findings. They rechecked their
facts. For the details of this fascinating story, please refer to [2].

Recently the ASF celebrated its 10th anniversary. IMHO, if the
foundation is ever to celebrate its 100th anniversary, we better
develop a better tradition for dealing with critical input.

[1] http://wiki.apache.org/jakarta-commons/Commons_20Logging_20FUD
[2] http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/horizon/2001/dinofooltrans.shtml

On 2005-03-08 7:35:11, Brian Stansberry wrote:

 > I was a little surprised myself, which is why I wanted to follow
 > Ceki's good example and publish test cases that could easily be
 > verified (or debunked) by others.


-- 
Ceki Gülcü

   The complete log4j manual: http://www.qos.ch/log4j/



---------------------------------------------------------------------
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