Yes, I think there should be some kind of discussion about the "log viewer client" or whatever we want to call it. Log4j has been fortunate that 2 different clients have been donated to the cause. There has been some good discussion about what kinds of features would make such a client as useful as possible, and I'm sure there are more voices to be heard on this front.
Personally, I would like to see collaboration and consolidation. I would like to see the best features of both integrated into a single, unified tool. I would like to see this tool implemented in such a way that it provides opportunities to the tool users to extend and augment to their particular needs and environment, just like the core log4j classes. Having two tools, competing within the same project, while possible, I don't know if it is desired. I think it will just cause confusion in the user base. Unless there are very compelling reasons we have not yet explored. I don't know what Oliver's and Brad's thoughts are on this, and I want to hear them. As I am not as familiar with logfactor5 code, I would also appreciate a "logfactor5 nickel tour" from Brad, if he has some time. Just a simple explanation of the logfactor5 code and the key places/elements/themes to look at. Current user's of chainsaw and logfactor5 on this list should pipe in with their thoughts on the 2 tools. What they like/dislike, how they want them improved, etc. Then we should take some time to come up with some kind of consensus/roadmap of where we want to take this code. I think it will go a long way in determining how things are handled, etc. Other thoughts? -Mark > -----Original Message----- > From: Ceki G�lc� [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Monday, May 06, 2002 3:59 AM > To: Log4J Developers List > Subject: LF5 and chainsaw (was: LogFactor5) > > > Hi all, > > I am assuming you mean a discussion about having two "competing" log > viewers shipped with log4j. (The term "log viewer" might be incomplete > but I'll use it nonetheless for the sake of simplicity.) > > We went from having no log viewers to having two. We arrived at this > situation "in the open" but in a relatively short period of time (< 1 > month). By "in the open", I of course mean that relevant discussions > were mostly conducted on the log4j-dev list although there were a few > phone conversations and one thread on [EMAIL PROTECTED] about > the legal aspects of the lf5 contribution. > > The future of chainsaw and lf5 depends mostly on their developers. The > developers might decide to merge their efforts or continue separately. > Although duplication is usually a wasted effort, it is up to the > developers directly involved to decide where they want to spend their > efforts. I feel that it is not up to the larger log4j > community to impose a > decision. > > Collaboration between developers depends on concrete needs but also > on the personalities of the developers. On the latter aspect, I think > we have been very lucky with both chainsaw and lf5. > > This does not mean that things cannot turn sour. Since all Apache > copyrighted code lives under the same roof, there are no legal brakes > for "borrowing" code from one project in another and even less so > within the same project such as log4j. Although there are no legal > hurdles, moral ones do exist. When you use code from another author, > it does not cost much to ask for permission to do so. Even with > permission, it does not hurt to keep the name of the original author. > As far as I am concerned these are moral *obligations*. > > Coming back to chainsaw and lf5, there are several outcomes: > > 1) Both log viewers find a niche within the "log viewing" niche and > live happily (but separately) ever after. > > 2) The developers of one viewer punt, stop investing and their viewer > dies a slow death. > > 3) The developers decide to merge their efforts. > > In any case, it is up to the developers doing the coding to > decide what > to do with the future of their efforts. Feel free to comment, > disagree, point to alternatives, but whatever you do, avoid trashing > another author's code. Cheers, Ceki > > At 10:31 03.05.2002 -0700, Mark Womack wrote: > >Max, > > > >I think we would all love to accept and review whatever > patches you want to > >submit. I know that I find the Chainsaw filtering invaluable. > > > >Things are still waiting for 1.2 to finish up and release > before the new > >stuff goes forward. And there is some needed discussion > about the Chainsaw > >& LogFactor5 clients that needs to happen. Right, guys? > > -- > Ceki > > > -- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: > <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > For additional commands, e-mail: > <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
