Brian,
From a cursory look at your document, I have to *speculate* that the changes you describe do not solve the core flaws in JCL but merely hide them by falling back on java.util.logging. However, I am only *speculating* as I have not had a chance to study your document with the care that it deserves.
After careful study of JCL, I am convinced that JCL is broken beyond hope. While its interfaces can be salvaged, its implementation must be thrown away entirely. While this opinion is not popular around here, it is based on verifiable facts, not wishful thinking that does not survive critical scrutiny.
I was very surprised to discover that several voting participants in JCL are more concerned about covering their political asses rather than verifiable facts. Until this day, JCL developers have not acknowledged the fatal flaws in their software. The talk always has been about "corner cases" even if the problems faced by users are frequent and manifestly major. The JCL wiki still qualifies my past analysis as FUD [1].
Many of us are drawn to open source for the love of writing good software. As any engineering discipline, software development has its roots in scientific methodology, where one hopes that verifiable facts prime over petty political considerations. It seems to me that when someone comes with verifiable facts, the right attitude is to acknowledge the facts rather than try to ignore or ridicule them.
We all make mistakes. However, in technical branches, we have the luxury of experimentation. When facts debunk our beliefs, we can either rise to the occasion and rectify those false beliefs or ignore the facts and plow on to until the facts catch up with us.
In late 1999, National Magazine published an article about a newly discovered Archaeoraptor fossil, calling it "a true missing link" demonstrating the relation between birds and dinosaurs, supposedly bringing to conclusion a debate raging since the 1860s.
When XU XING, a Chineese palaeontologist, declared that the "missing-link" fossil acquired by National Geographic was a fake, the illustrious magazine rechecked their facts and admitted their mistake. They had invested considerably in the article and had already checked their facts. However, when XU XING's message arrived, they did not summarily dismiss it or ridicule his findings. They rechecked their facts. For the details of this fascinating story, please refer to [2].
Recently the ASF celebrated its 10th anniversary. IMHO, if the foundation is ever to celebrate its 100th anniversary, we better develop a better tradition for dealing with critical input.
[1] http://wiki.apache.org/jakarta-commons/Commons_20Logging_20FUD [2] http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/horizon/2001/dinofooltrans.shtml
On 2005-03-08 7:35:11, Brian Stansberry wrote:
> I was a little surprised myself, which is why I wanted to follow > Ceki's good example and publish test cases that could easily be > verified (or debunked) by others.
-- Ceki Gülcü
The complete log4j manual: http://www.qos.ch/log4j/
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
