A coupole of questions for Pete in-line .. > -----Original Message----- > From: Peter Donald [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Wednesday, 20 June, 2001 16:51 > To: Avalon Development > Subject: Re: LogKit and Log4J Discussion > > > On Wed, 20 Jun 2001 23:13, Berin Loritsch wrote: > > Peter, > > > > LogKit is your baby, and you are very protective of it. > > However, some of your areguments come off as if they are from > > left field. An example is: > > > > "If however you are not accusing me of stealing ideas but instead of > > violating copyright then that is another thing altogether. I > > would like to see substantiated evidence that this has been the case > > for I do not apreciate slander." > > > > Ceki's comments were not meant as slander. Even I can read that much.
I agreed. > Slander is generally defined as spreading of untrue statements to > damage a persons reputation. "In the process, you have copied from log4j > without contributing back. I do not think this honors you. We innovate, > you copy." is false and Ceki is aware of this. It's intent is to damage > reputation. How can it not be slander? > > Perhaps it is just because I am starting to get sick of this kind of > behaviour. Ceki is not the only apache member who believes slander is a > justified means to achieve an end. I used to believe that people > were honest here and it was one of the reasons I was happy to be involved > with Apache. > The longer I am here the more petty, childish, dishonest behaviour I see > exhibited - often by leads. One thing I can't stand is dishonesty > and I don't think it is ever acceptable in a forum like this. > > > We should not be enemies. Both of you are very protective of > > your babies. > > This is good. However, if both of these projects are going to > > exist under the same umbrella--Apache--then there needs to be some > > symbiance between them. Honestly, I like Logkit because it is IMO > > easy to use, and packaged with Avalon. LogKit was part of Avalon before > > Log4J was part of Apache. I admit, I have not used Log4J due to the fact > > LogKit meets my needs. I also recognise that there are thousands of > > developers with the opposite view--that they like Log4J because it meets > > their needs and have no desire to switch. Things are spinning in a direction that makes the above point important. My experience/preferences are very similar to Berin's .. LogKit does most of what I want, doesn't cause any pain, and because its bundled its the logging framework we are using. But Log4J has a log more mindshare and its creeping into our work - other activities we are involved with are using Log4J and with the emergence of a logging service in the JRE the pot just gets more complicated. > I would have loved to have dropped LogKit ages ago. Less code is > generally the better. If you look back at the archives (I think this list > was cced) I was looking forward for Log4j coming to Apache and being > involved in it. With initial proposal I looked at it and made some > comments (lacked dynamic configuration, serialized early, lacked filters, > had some methods that should have been final, used unsafe type enums, etc). > A bit later I think I also forwarded a release log when Ceki implemented > most of these features (there are still methods that should be final). > > However trying to get him to change anything else was impossible. Then I > attempted to encourage to join together and do a "revolution". > Both LogKit and Log4j have errors in them and we could eliminate them - he > refused. Then I tried to get him to at least to agree on common backend > (ie Appenders, Events etc) - he never replied. The only reason that LogKit > remains is because Log4j is unsuitable for our use - and Ceki was not > interested in cooperating to fix it. Pete ... this is the first of two points I would appreciate additional information on. Can you summarise the specific reasons why Log4j is unsuitable for our use? > > What I would like to see in the near future is a Logger > > interface that both projects can aggree to so that people who develop > > in Avalon can use their logger of choice. If JDK 1.4 supplies such an > > interface it might be worth investigating. > > Never happen - not technically viable. If this is really the case, then what we are saying is that anyone using Avalon *must* live with possibly multiple logging frameworks and that it is not possible to abstract out a common interface. Which leads to my second request .. can you summarise the reasons behind your "not technically viable" conclusion? Cheers, Steve. > Cheers, > > Pete > > *-----------------------------------------------------* > | "Faced with the choice between changing one's mind, | > | and proving that there is no need to do so - almost | > | everyone gets busy on the proof." | > | - John Kenneth Galbraith | > *-----------------------------------------------------* > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
