On Tue, 8 Jan 2002 01:40, Sam Ruby wrote: > Peter Donald wrote: > > > > > So are you proposing to become a log4j committer? > > > > > > > > Would there be a point to that? > > > > > > It depends on whether and how you want to contribute. > > > There still is a lot of work to do. Ceki > > > > And theres the rub. > > These one (or two) line answers don't do much to illuminate the issues. > Let me try to rectify this:
actually thats not the point I was trying to get across (but an interesting one none the less). The point I was trying to get across was about Cekis attitude is precisely why Jakarta is the way it is and why it is going to only get "worse". He has no problem with me working for Log4j but the idea of actual collaboration is foreign. Now wouldn't it have been more interesting if he had said "lets get together and collaborate on Log4j v2" as you suggest or even just sharing the common infrstructure. However he didn't. He wants me to work on his project. I wonder if Jon asked Craig to work on turbine whether he would accept? hmmmmm I wonder. > Ceki, fundamental to Avalon is a design pattern that is referred to as > "Inversion of Control". This is fairly concisely described at the > following web page: > http://jakarta.apache.org/avalon/framework/inversion-of-control.html , > including an example which maps this concept into exactly this domain. IOC is not really the stop gap - Log4j could easily layered over the top of LogKit with very few issues. > Can > you conceive of any possibility where you and Peter could work together on > a "log4j v2.0" which conforms to what amounts to a set of restrictions on > what a component can do? Your answer above indicates that you have > preconceived notions as to how you would limit Peter's freedom to > participate. Care to elaborate? This is what I initially proposed to Ceki after it became obvious he was not willing to enable what we needed. This was a few months before he even came to Apache IIRC and I sent him at least 3 different proposals on how to integrate our work - though I believe he claims he only received 2. However at no stage did he even bother to acknowledge the proposals. I would be very surprised if Ceki was willing to work with anyone else though I could be surprised .. I suspect the answer is "no" though ;) > Peter, as you are well aware, I'm not overly thrilled with the way that > Avalon has participated in commons either. I weren't aware we were participating ? ;) > I have been unable to locate an > adequate archive to point to, but recently I felt compelled recently > (2001-12-26) to write the following words: > > There are quite a few projects under the Apache umbrella that I see as > simultaneously unwilling to depend on others, and puzzled that more > people are not willing to depend on them. And if you recall I agreed with you in a reply ... or at least I seem to recall doing so ;) > To drive this point home, the subject line of this thread identifies > exactly one such set of duplication - between Turbine and Struts. My > nagging lead Berin to propose moving the Avalon collections code into > commons, to which you responded, and I quote, "+/- 0". I was hoping Jeff would do it as he seemed to be involved over there ;) I have no time atm and no real motiviation to do it. Last time I was on the list I watched 3 things be proposed to commons - nobody even voted !!! There was no response whatsoever. Apparently Jeff has similar comments when he offered some of the avalon bits over there. I m not willing to do the work for some simple reasons * I don't like the management style (see below) * I am lazy and don't like creating more work for myself (bet you knew that already though) * I no longer care about duplication and wheel reinvention (it will happen anyway) > You can say all you want that you predicted how commons would turn out - > but lack of participation by people such as yourself have made such > predictions self fulfilling prophesies. Heres what sucks about commons; 1. People who are not associated with codebase nor ever contributed to it get voting rights over codebase (who needs meritocracy anyways) 2. Stable packages still have to go via sandbox and go through that whole painful voting process (yet more non-contributors getting votes over codebase) 3. Im not a committer Change (1) and I will migrate the majority of excaalibur across in time (and bitch and moan till (2)/(3) is changed). Change (1), (2) and (3) and I will move stuff across tomorrow (though still take time to actually do releases). -- Cheers, Pete ----------------------------------------------------------- "Remember, your body is a temple; however, it's also your dancehall and bowling alley" -- Dharma Montgomery ----------------------------------------------------------- -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
