logging-log4j-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Mark Womack <wom...@adobe.com>
Subject RE: JDJ - log4j vs java.util.logging
Date Thu, 24 Mar 2005 17:52:29 GMT
It has been a while since I developed in C++, but couldn't a commons-logging
project under Logging Services also develop generic logging interfaces for
other languages than just Java?  That would fall under the LS umbrella, and
might be pretty cool.

-Mark

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mark Womack [mailto:womack@adobe.com]
> Sent: Thursday, March 24, 2005 9:33 AM
> To: 'Log4J Developers List'
> Subject: RE: JDJ - log4j vs java.util.logging
> 
> I like the idea of moving commons logging out of Jakarta and into Logging
> Services.  I have to admit that I have always been a little perplexed that
> it was done in Jakarta Commons, but at the time logging within Apache was
> very log4j focused.  Now that log4j lives in Logging Services, with other
> cross-language, cross-platform projects, I think a better case can be made
> that commons-logging should be developed and maintained here.
> 
> Not to get away from the technical aspects of the issue, but Yoav is right
> about the marketing and branding.  We need a single focus that will be
> adopted quickly and by a majority of the projects.  JCL is perfect for
> this.
> We could still argue the technical merits of a different solution, but it
> will be an uphill slog to get adoption.  And besides, JCL needs to be
> fixed
> anyway.
> 
> So, how do we go about proposing that JCL move to LS and that work on JCL
> 2.0 should be started?  We will obviously need buy-in from the Jakarta
> Commons folk.  I would like to see some number of the JCL
> committers/interested parties make and facilitate the migration.  I guess
> we
> would need to drop the "J" from "JCL". :-)
> 
> -Mark
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Yoav Shapira [mailto:yoavsh@MIT.EDU]
> > Sent: Thursday, March 24, 2005 8:25 AM
> > To: 'Log4J Developers List'
> > Subject: RE: JDJ - log4j vs java.util.logging
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > > So, is the only concern the brand name "JCL"?  It seems to be.
> >
> > Yup.
> >
> > > If the
> > > code is
> > > going to be completely different and not backwards compatible with the
> > > existing
> > > "JCL" it isn't really "JCL", so why call it "JCL"?
> >
> > Because the brand name is powerful and will lead to rapid adoption.
> >
> > > Why not call it
> > > "UGLI"?  And
> >
> > Because that's an ugly acronym (pun intended) and an unfamiliar one,
> > leading
> > to "yet another logging interface" discussions.
> >
> > > if it has to do with logging, why should it be a Jakarta project when
> > > there
> > > exists an official Apache logging services project?
> >
> > It can be moved to a Logging Services project, doesn't have to stay
> within
> > Jakarta.
> >
> > > It seems to me that
> > > UGLI
> > > has already solved the problems that the proposed JCL 2.0 is supposed
> to
> > > solve.
> >
> > UGLI hasn't solved anything in practice, because there's no one using
> it.
> > If you take UGLI and call it JCL 2.0 (having obtained consensus from the
> > JCL
> > team), then you have a point.
> >
> > >  And if UGLI hasn't completely addressed all logging API issues, then
> > why
> > > doesn't the JCL 2.0 team accept that there has already been work done
> to
> >
> > There's no such thing as a JCL 2.0 team at this time.  There's also no
> > argument about whether UGLI has addressed all the issues: if UGLI hasn't
> > done so already, it surely will shortly.
> >
> > > I don't mean for this to be flamebait.
> >
> > It's not, or at least I'm not taking it as such.  The questions are
> good.
> >
> > > I'm just really perplexed as to
> > > why JCL
> > > 2.0 is needed now that UGLI exists?
> >
> > Because I don't think anyone will adopt UGLI quickly.  It's "yet another
> > logging interface" to most people.
> >
> > > The fact
> > > that
> > > there still exists a group in Apache developing a logging API that
> > > continues to
> > > work outside the official logging services project is awefully strange
> > as
> > > well.
> > > I can understand this between completely separate open source
> entities,
> > > but not
> > > within the same (Apache) organization.  Very strange.
> >
> > Top-level projects within the ASF are almost entirely separate
> > organizations.  A good argument could be made that Logging Services
> should
> > have taken JCL with it when moving Log4j out of Jakarta.  A good
> argument
> > can be made that the same applies now: we should move JCL out of Jakarta
> > and
> > into Logging Services.
> >
> > In addition, two other small points: there's not much active development
> > on
> > JCL at the moment.  And lack of coordination between organizational
> > entities
> > is not at all a strange phenomenon: it's a sub-optimal and sometimes
> even
> > bad one, but it's common unfortunately.  We need to proactively work on
> > better coordination.
> >
> > This is not a discussion of technical merits for the most part.  I don't
> > doubt UGLI is much better.  I do doubt people will be eager to adapt it
> > without a massive and prolonged marketing campaign.  That campaign could
> > be
> > made much easier and shorter if we called it JCL 2.0.
> >
> > Yoav
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: log4j-dev-unsubscribe@logging.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: log4j-dev-help@logging.apache.org
> 
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: log4j-dev-unsubscribe@logging.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: log4j-dev-help@logging.apache.org


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: log4j-dev-unsubscribe@logging.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: log4j-dev-help@logging.apache.org


Mime
View raw message