Mailing-List: contact general-help@logging.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: "Logging General" <general@logging.apache.org>
Received-SPF: neutral (herse.apache.org: local policy)
Message-ID: <4648E77E.7040103@apache.org>
Date: Tue, 15 May 2007 00:49:34 +0200
From: "Rony G. Flatscher (Apache)" <rony@apache.org>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.10 (Windows/20070221)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Logging General <general@logging.apache.org>
Subject: Re: Little update and additional infos on the ooRexx implementation
 ... (Re: 'log4r' - a new 'log4j' like framework about to be released ...
References: <462FB5CF.1080407@apache.org>
 <1729CFA3-9140-4B18-B98B-0579BFAC22C0@apache.org>
 <4630DC12.3000607@apache.org> <46480B44.4020803@apache.org>
 <AFEE89EC-A3C0-4A77-8502-292609197FA0@apache.org>
In-Reply-To: <AFEE89EC-A3C0-4A77-8502-292609197FA0@apache.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Hi Curt,
> Seems like it may have already out-grown the labs phase.  You
> apparently have a functioning code base and maybe the start of a
> community and applying to the incubator might be the appropriate
> action.  Completing a Podling Proposal would be helpful to identify
> any issues.
Sorry, not being a native English speaker and not finding a translation,
may I just ask you what a "Podling Proposal" would be?

> Seems like ooRexx has a established legal and development framework in
> which you are a significant participant.  Is there a reason that
> Apache would be a better home for log4r?
Well, seeing that commons is going TLP and possibly removing its ties to
Java, I thought it might be a good idea to have comparable
implementations to the log4j architecture put untder the commons
umbrella. OTOH, it would be possible and feasible to submit the current
implentation to the opensource ooRexx project's incubator.

If you think that it would be better for the project to submit it to the
ooRexx  projec (and maybe have a link or infos about an ooRexx
implementation of the log4j architecture), I would do so. (If done so,
would you think that the term "log4r" would be still confusing with the
Ruby implementation?)

> On a technical side, it appears that you were involved in the
> development of an ooRexx/Java bridge as part of Apache BSF.  Does the
> use of log4r resemble the use of log4j over the bridge?
No, log4r as it stands now is a stand-alone, pure ooRexx implementation.
It would be feasible in general, however, to take advantage of log4j
itself using the ooRexx bridge for Apache BSF (but that is a totally
different use-case making ooRexx dependent on Java, which nowadays -
practically every computer has a JRE installed - may not be a hindering
stone anymore).

Regards,

---rony