Paulo Gaspar wrote:
> Sorry Ken...
>
> ...but this time it sounds like you don't know what you are talking
> about. (Well, at least it is just an exception to the rule.)
;-) Then it's mostly a compliment :-)
>>*This* is the point.
>>If Avalon's was so good why did they rewrite it?
>
>
> See the archives. The motivation was NOT technical and they had to
> relearn everything that was already on the Avalon stuff. There was
> someone explicitly stating that he would not touch anything with
> Peter's (Donald) name on it - he didn't even look at it.
>
> But before he explicitly stated this (after my insistence on the
> subject) he was basically misleading people by implying that the
> Avalon stuff was just not good enough.
>
> Craig had no trouble picking code from Avalon for the JDK 1.4 logger
> wrapper, but many others just refused to look at it.
I know, this is why I wrote that sentence.
the complete snippet is:
> The commons-logging guys were the ones rewriting the Avalon stuff.
> They might have started earlier, but by December the
> Avalon logging stuff was MUCH more advanced and smoe of them
> just refused to look at
>
>>*This* is the point.
>>If Avalon's was so good why did they rewrite it?
Reply: Because they didn't even look at it.
All I say gets interpreted here as "Avalon code sucks", but that's not
true, nor what I want to say.
I mean "communication of the wonders of Avalon sucks".
It's a communication problem.
Not documentation, as some imply, but communication.
>>The ego stuff goes two ways ;-)
>
> That is no excuse. I still read code from people with ego's I dislike
> and I still take what they say at face value.
>
> Hey, Peter Donald (on the top of most anti-Avalon black lists) is not
> kissing me all the time either (thank God) but I am still learning a
> lot from him / his code. (*)
>
> Since I have no especially good ego (hey, I come from a typical latin
> ego-driven culture) I must assume that anyone could do the same.
You'd be impressed to know that the vast majority of the people in the
world don't want to recieve suggestions.
Before giving a suggestion to someone that didn't ask you for it, try
asking if he really would like to recieve it. You'll see that it's
general human nature not to want any.
> I even think they should, for their own and the common good. I really
> think this Tomcat incident was another "I don't have a clue about what
> Avalon is but I don't like it anyway because their guys are not nice
> enough to me".
Wrong IMHO.
I don't like it anyway because I don't understand it and I can't stand
to show all that I don't.
Being nice is not how to sell things.
Giving solutions to the needs is.
That's why I like the reorganization we are doing in Avalon, because it
makes it a more clear and easy solution, even for first-time users.
> This kind of recurring incident SUCKS big time, is misleading and
> should be exposed as an attitude problem of its author instead of just
> being shy about it and assuming it might be Avalon's fault.
When you fail to sell something, you can never complain that the buyer
sucks. It's just your fault.
> This is NOT "just an Avalon problem".
>
> Apache is no Miss Universe contest. Our focus should be to cooperate
> into building great stuff and the engineering skills to do it should
> be the main requisite - instead of the ability to be Mister Nice and
> say sweet things all the time.
Listen, I work in a firm with 50 people, and often use external
workforce till 100.
We sell all over the world doing industrial automation, and guess what,
communication is important.
If you have a wonderful product and can't sell it, you loose. Simple as
that.
Even if you customers are assholes that buy your basic machine, adapt it
in-house, and say you product sucks.
--
Nicola Ken Barozzi [EMAIL PROTECTED]
- verba volant, scripta manent -
(discussions get forgotten, just code remains)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
