deltaspike-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Gerhard Petracek <gerhard.petra...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] Logging
Date Wed, 25 Jan 2012 09:25:23 GMT
1) -1 for i18n logging (i think we agree on it already)
2) +1 for fast internal logging
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.
4) +0.5 for a >thin< abstraction layer + jul as default (>at least< to get
a more concise api)
5) +1 for supporting type-safe logging for applications, >if< we keep it in
an own module
6) -1 for using type-safe logging >within< deltaspike (imo we don't need it
internally)
7) +1 for error-codes
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
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message