Hi Adam, I hope I am not getting on the nerves of some members of this list, but I had to write this.
On Monday 07 June 2004 16:07, Adam R. B. Jack wrote: > > I am CCing [EMAIL PROTECTED], avalon-dev and commons-dev to elicit input > > for this endeavor. > > I'm no expert in this area, simply an external user (with no insights into > history/politics/whatever). That said, I'm not shy to provide my input... Thanks for writing this mail. It hits what I wanted to say with my mail "commons-configuration and commons-logging". I am an external user as well and am not the right person to give an answer to your mail, but I want to emphasise what you wrote. > > I've loved logging (log4j, simple), I've hated logging (for becoming a > pain). I've never had good experiences with commons-logging in my > environments (not saying I could do better, I recognize the challenge is > non-trivial), but I accept it is currently a *necessary evil* given > Javasoft adding to the mix w/ JDK logging. Logging users just ought not > suffer the pain. > > If UGLI is a way to bring /commons-logging/ into the fold of logging > services & provided as a globally available service, I could be +1 for that > .. > > That said, a few things: > > 1) I don't know the two communities, but one thing I like about C-L being > in 'user space' is it is clearly a user advocate w/o the temptations to > extend the API. We see (from the recent Gump failures) how many folks > depend upon C-L already, but maybe putting it into a logging services > community would open it up to more folks, including container writers. > > 2) I know C-L has a hard life, it is trying to sit on top of so much, but I > find it's need/attempt to call/configure logging packages a problem. I > don't know if I am expressing some form of IOC thought here, but when > working on Depot, even C-L falls down. We (as a library) wanted to plug in > to Ant, and we didn't want to force the C-L to Ant bridge. Basically, we > wrote our own (yet another) logging that was simply a listener pattern, and > plugged in an Ant logger listener, or a commons logging listener, as > appropriate. Works nicely, but I don't want to write that code. I'd like > UGLI as a logging abstraction that all containers can agree upon (Ant as a > container, an application as a container) and have the environment provide > it. That is what I am dreaming of: "a logging abstraction that all (containers) can agree upon" > > 3) Forgive me, but ... would UGLI (with nose holding) be able to sit under > JDK logging? Surely folks ought be able to just use that. Ugly or not, the > JDK solution is going to be there inside any recent Java VM. Is that not > sufficiently simple? I agree on both. It is ugly but if all would use it, it is what I am dreaming of (is that what they call a nightmare - just kidding :) ). > > Right now, logging is simple, but real-world logging has become way too > complex, in too many environments. Something needs to give. > > regards, > > Adam Regards J�rg --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
