On Tue, 2005-03-08 at 14:39, Ceki Gülcü wrote: > 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.
IMHO speculation often proves damaging brian's document gives a honest assessment of the impact of the changes. that's very valuable in itself. > 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. LOL! it's a little ironic that both richard and i have held that opinion for a long while now. however, ceki's and brian's investigations are now starting to persuade me that there is actually some hope for much improved discovery from the 1.0.x series of releases. there are a number of subtle issues (well, they seem subtle to me) about salvaging the interfaces. it's more difficult that it should be. not being able to fix them easily is what i have always regarded as the JCL fatal flaw. i think that there are ways to maintain backwards compatibility which should also allow the interfaces to be salvaged for reuse by different implementations. i was working on code along these lines but i only have so much energy and most of it (over the last few weeks) has been taken up replying to ceki's posts and analysing ceki's examples (or so it seems to me). > 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]. oh come on ceki! if you didn't choose to use such intemperate language, you would not precipitate such a strong reaction. it seems to me that your comments are aimed at one particular individual who hasn't been able to find much jakarta commons time in recent months. a flamewar requires two to prosper. if i'm wrong about this, then it would be more effective to name the targets of your displeasure. to some, having to place a jar in a particular classloader to ensure that JCL autodiscovery works is a fatal flaw. others will say this limitation is a corner case. personally, i'm not convinced that arguing symantics really gets anyone anywhere. it certainly doesn't get software coded... - robert --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
