On Dec 17, 2007 11:13 PM, Trustin Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Dec 18, 2007 3:40 AM, Alex Karasulu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Dec 17, 2007 11:29 AM, Maarten Bosteels <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> > > IMO, that is a rather weak argument for resorting to our own "thin
> > > layer for logging".
> >
> > Yes I agree completely. It's unnecessary to add yet another logging
> layer.
> >
> > I know several JBoss people are resentful with having to use SLF4J while
> now
> > using MINA but there is no reason why we should push forward with that.
>
> You understood plain wrong. It's not about JBoss people but about any
> possible users who want to build their own framework on top of MINA.
> Do you think I am pushing this because I am working for JBoss? Never.
No I am not saying you are "pushing this because [you are] working for
JBoss". You have jumped to the wrong conclusion. Let me tell you what I
know about the present situation and what I am thinking or fearing:
(1) I am aware of a few things regarding JBoss:
(a) I know David Lloyd is a JBoss employee. Yes the other guy with
your same opinion.
(b) I know you, Trustin, are a JBoss employee.
(c) I know that you guys interact outside of this list through office
channels.
(d) I have friends at JBoss who have asked several times before JBoss
hired you if I can work on you to drop SLF4J. They should know no one can
work on you :). I refused to do that since they can make their points
themselves on the list directly with you.
NOTE: I've always liked people in both JBoss and Geronimo communities.
Because of these relations and my association with both Apache and JBoss I
have always remained neutral and unbiased to both. That will always remain
the case.
(2) I know you and David are the minority pushing for the same logging API
in MINA. Just look at the email trail [0]. There are many more who are
opposed to this idea.
(3) You pushed this same agenda in the past before you were a JBoss employee
[1]. (How can I suggest JBoss is making you do this?)
(4) I won't go into detail to keep some things private but I know you wanted
to find this thread [1] because it was one which you suspected was a veto
against you. You explicitly searched for and found this thread after some
recent events.
(5) I know you mean the best for MINA since it is somewhat a source of
recognition for you (and there is nothing wrong with that since you should
benefit from your hard effort on MINA). Also you may change employers but
will always keep your association with MINA.
So because of #3 specifically, (and #5) I am aware that you're not doing
this because of JBoss pressure. That's not the main point I was trying to
make. I know you genuinely think this is the best for MINA. I know of
others besides you employed by JBoss and these were the people I was
referring too. These were the people in #1 (d). You incorrectly presumed I
was referring to you.
However, regarding this thread coming back to life, it occurred right after
you explicitly searched for it. You wanted to bring it up again, primarily
because it was an outstanding issue that you felt was legitimate. Most
importantly, it did not unfold in the manner you wanted it to be addressed.
This is all fine, but I'm wondering why David kicked it off and joined in.
I'm not suggesting we have a "follow the leader" situation but the
possibility is starting to occur regularly in my head. This is happening
because I fear having the merits of my points undermined by back channel
coordination. Again I am not accusing you of it. I am stating it as a
concern and something that my reasoning points to as a possibility.
Thankfully, the majority, of individuals on thread [0], naturally opposed
the emergence of yet another logging API. If they did not, then my voice or
any other opposing voice, would be drowned out. As a well respected and
empowered member of this community, you should try to prevent your over
whelming stature from drowning out fainter voices of reason. Sometimes
there is no absolute right or wrong decision and it's a trade off. So, when
you possess so much influence, the responsible thing to do is to look out
for those that have less influence but are trying to make a point for the
benefit of the project.
The majority has expressed it's disinterest with this idea and sometimes you
need to yield to the community over your own beliefs of what is the best
route. Let the community find out for itself if it is wrong. Besides, they
got your message. They already have the information for your approach
imprinted twice now in the archives. If the rest of us is wrong we can
revisit the topic. It's fair to say, the majority is still not interested
in pursuing yet another logging API to be maintained by MINA. So can we
drop this, please?
Alex
-----------------------------
[0] - http://mina.markmail.org/search/?q=Revisiting+logging+in+MINA+2.0
[1] - http://mina.markmail.org/search/?q=Is+SLF4J+hard+to+configure%3F
