On Tuesday, January 29, 2002, at 07:39 PM, Berin Loritsch wrote: > Scott Sanders wrote: > >> Berin, I think that I understand how you feel, and although the >> abstraction was implemented outside of Avalon, I do believe that Avalon >> should be attributed in some way, because it ended up being so close. >> What can we do to make this better? The biggest difference that I see >> is that commons-logging is trying to be super small. I want to talk >> this out before I give my +1 on the release. I am willing to try and >> make this better. >> I am -0 until I can see completely where Berin is coming from. > > > I want it documented in the javadocs and/or other documentation where the > design > for this originated, and author attributes for the original authors of the > Logger abstraction. > > The fact that this is outside of Avalon is beside the point. However, > you should > attribute the original source that influenced its design.
(perhaps paulo realizes now why i refused to look at his logging material from avalon.) hi berin from my point of view, avalon didn't influence the design any more than log4j. please search the list archives if you don't believe me. (i've taken a *lot* of flak about being unwilling to learning from avalon.) i've been waiting since the commons was started for a solution to our logging problem. every particular logging system that was proposed was vetoed (including avalon). commons-logging is unfortunately the only choice remaining on the table. it's either this or not having a solution at all, i personally couldn't care less about who gets attributed with what. if that's all that's bothering you, please submit a patch. on the other hand, if you think that we should be using whatever-bit-of-code-in-avalon then that's a different issue. please submit a alternative proposal so that we can vote on it. all i want is to have a solution to the logging problem. - robert -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
