logging-log4j-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Ceki Gülcü <c...@qos.ch>
Subject RE: JDJ - log4j vs java.util.logging
Date Thu, 24 Mar 2005 17:50:24 GMT
At 06:04 PM 3/24/2005, Jacob Kjome wrote:

>We for me, the brand name "JCL" carries a lot of baggage with it and if 
>JCL 2.0
>is supposed to be the new official logging API, it will take some time get 
>my nauseous aversion to the name even if it finally works properly.  So 
>far from
>  the name being an advantage, to someone like me, it is a severe 
> disadvantage.
>But I suppose I'm in the minority.

First, being in a minority does not mean you are wrong. Second, countless 
other developers share your opinion. On this topic it's hard to say who 
holds a minority opinion and who doesn't.

>I actually like the UGLI name.  I find pleasure in the idea of producing a
>product that is so good, people just need to use it despite the fact that they
>may choke a bit on the name :-)  As for "yet another logging interface" 
>JCL 2.0, if it ever comes to fruition (remember, UGLI actually exists and
>works!), being backward incompatible, is essentially a new logging interface.
>So whether we talk about UGLI or JCL 2.0, we are definitely talking about 
>  However, I suspect that you agree with me on this and are just saying that
>people will percieve UGLI to be YALI and not JCL 2.0, even though both 
>are.  Am
>I right?

Some people like the name, some people don't. There is no harm in looking 
at more consensual names.

> > > 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.
> >
>And then no longer be called JCL "Jakarta Commons Logging", thereby 
>ruining the


>Which is why I have a hard time even understanding why such a team is proposed
>when UGLI already exists.  The first question should have been "can UGLI be
>utilized to solve our issue"?  If the major concern is branding, then the fact
>that UGLI wasn't the first option tells me that there is a conscious effort to
>eschew UGLI from consideration.  I certainly haven't seen such a proposal from
>the JCL people on the Log4j mailing list.  Is such a proposal on its way?

Interesting question.

>Again, I have yet to see the proposal from the JCL team.  It should have been
>the first question to come up, and it should have come up a long time ago.
>Maybe I'm watching the wrong lists?  But if they want to work proactively with
>Log4j, which currently develops UGLI, then it would behoove them to 
>contact the
>Log4j list, in which case I would most definitely see it.

YAIQ (yet another interesting question)

> > Yoav

Ceki Gülcü

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

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

View raw message