deltaspike-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Pete Muir <pm...@redhat.com>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] Logging
Date Wed, 25 Jan 2012 12:03:12 GMT
I don't think internationalized error messages don't make sense from a technical perspective.
All the arguments I've seen against them are social (we can't as easily answer their questions
as we can't understand the error message). If there are technical reasons, I would be interested
to hear them.

PS at Red Hat, the roles are a bit different. Engineers come up with the ideas, and Product
Managers filter whether they make sense for the business to sell or not.

On 25 Jan 2012, at 11:57, Mark Struberg wrote:

> Product Managers often likes to have stuff - and also often they cannot argument WHY
they like to have them ;)
> 
> 
> That's part of the job of a Product Manager - to come up with new ideas. Some of them
are good, others are not.
> Our job as technician is to filter out the ones who make no sense from a technological
perspective.
> 
> LieGrue,
> strub
> 
> 
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: Pete Muir <pmuir@redhat.com>
>> To: deltaspike-dev@incubator.apache.org
>> Cc: 
>> Sent: Wednesday, January 25, 2012 12:23 PM
>> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Logging
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Also,
>> 
>> On 25 Jan 2012, at 09:25, Gerhard Petracek wrote:
>> 
>>> 1) -1 for i18n logging (i think we agree on it already)
>> 
>> I know our product managers are after i8ln for log messages - at least INFO 
>> (IIRC) and above should be l10n'd. I'll try to share the why when 
>> I've chatted to them.
>> 
>> So, I'm +0 right now.
>> 
>>> 2) +1 for fast internal logging
>> 
>> +10
>> 
>>> 3) +1 for avoiding dependencies (or shade them in - if it's really 
>> needed
>>> and we are allowed to do it).
>>>     it would be nice if all of our modules which are directly related to
>>> java-ee specs. can be used without additional dependencies for applications
>>> which get deployed to a java-ee6+ application-server.
>> 
>> +10
>> 
>>> 4) +0.5 for a >thin< abstraction layer + jul as default (>at 
>> least< to get
>>> a more concise api)
>> 
>> I would be +1 here, we've seen this work well in JBoss AS 7, and it seems 
>> much neater than the previous log4j stuff we had. However this might just be a 
>> better thin layer ;-)
>> 
>>> 5) +1 for supporting type-safe logging for applications, >if< we keep 
>> it in
>>> an own module
>> 
>> +1
>> 
>>> 6) -1 for using type-safe logging >within< deltaspike (imo we 
>> don't need it
>>> internally)
>> 
>> +1
>> 
>>> 7) +1 for error-codes
>> 
>> +1 - we would really appreciate this at JBoss, when it comes time to provide 
>> support to our customers for Deltaspike.
>> 
>>> 8) +1 for talking about concrete prototype/s (via [1]) and resolve this
>>> topic in v0.2
>>> 
>>> regards,
>>> gerhard
>>> 
>>> [1]
>>> 
>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/DeltaSpike/Suggested+Git+Workflows#SuggestedGitWorkflows-Discussionworkflow(optional)
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 2012/1/25 Gerhard Petracek <gerhard.petracek@gmail.com>
>>> 
>>>> +1!
>>>> 
>>>> regards,
>>>> gerhard
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 2012/1/25 Mark Struberg <struberg@yahoo.de>
>>>> 
>>>>>>> -1 to i18n and typesafe logging for version one.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Lincoln, why you hatin' on type-safe logging? Brother, hook 
>> me up with
>>>>> a +1
>>>>>> :)
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> -Dan
>>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> Hehe, that's the nice thing here at Apache.
>>>>> Since we only discuss those things on strictly technical levels we 
>> are
>>>>> still all brothers, even if we get some -1 sometimes :)
>>>>> 
>>>>> Don't worry Dan, if there are diverse opinions, then we have 
>> passed the
>>>>> test for the first lesson: free thinking :)
>>>>> 
>>>>> Having some +1 and -1 in an early discussion phase only means one 
>> thing:
>>>>> we need more arguments.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Lincoln, most of the times (at least if you see that a few people 
>> already
>>>>> casted +1 for some idea) it's very helpful if you underline 
>> your -1 with
>>>>> technical arguments means "_why_ you don't like type-safe 
>> logging" and/or
>>>>> the requirements you would have for such a feature to be 
>> successful.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Most votes here are majority votes [1], but I've seen it many 
>> times that
>>>>> (even after there are already lots of +1 on the table) a single 
>> person
>>>>> outlined a problem and did cast -1. And if the argument is valid, 
>> it's
>>>>> pretty often the case that the others recall their +1 and change it 
>> to -1
>>>>> as well.
>>>>> 
>>>>> It's really all about the arguments.
>>>>> 
>>>>> LieGrue,
>>>>> strub
>>>>> 
>>>>> [1] http://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>> 


Mime
View raw message