On Sat, Aug 15, 2015 at 4:38 AM, Xen <x...@dds.nl> wrote: > That doesn't really mean anything. I'm just saying that today feedback > might be handy instead of that neediness. > > Sorry to say, but I have an interest in this project as well of course, > and If I seem rude, it's just because I want things to be clear for me and > for you as well. Maybe that is presumptuous or out of my league or anything > of that kind -- can't find a better word right now. > > Maybe you'd consider that outrageous, I don't know, but to get back:. > > I am writing these emails to help you /SAVE/ time because I think and feel > and know that if you do /ineffective things/ you will in the end not have > spent your time well. You might be "effectively" be spending your time on a > disaster course, to put it real bluntly, it's not what I mean. You might be > effectively doing something that in the end doesn't really work out. Then > your "effective time spent" will still have been very ineffectively spent. > You'd agree with that, right?. > > You wouldn't want to be spending your time on some effort and in the end > all this time or most of it would have gone to waste because a few years > down the road you run into a problem (such as lack of uptake/enthusiasm) > and you can't understand why people are not using your program and in the > end there were some things you didn't understand at the time.... it could > be right? .... and you may find you need to revamp a whole lot because it > is starting to dawn on you. > > I know I am being offensive, I can't find a better way to express myself > about this.. pardon my mind and my illness. > > Currently I /can't/ work on Log4J because I have supplied a patch or at > least a request for comments on the Jira and I haven't had any feedback on > that. So how am I supposed to "go ahead and do stuff?". Okay it was also > because for a few days my emails didn't get through. > > So you're basically criticising my lack of "do-ocracy lovingness" but I've > spent at least a number of hours coding and exploring and I just haven't > had the feedback yet to go on, to do something else. > > The code is sitting there in my Git folder and I don't know what to do > with it, I can't commit it or push it I'd have to fork on Github or > whatever. This is due to my newness with open source versioning control. > > I have asked in one of my emails whether there was a need for additional > Builder classes. I got no response to that, so I went ahead and devised one > of my own that I think would be handy, the most obvious one. I supplied a > Jira (and sent an email, but it didn't get through) and now I'm just still > in limbo. > > Then I spend the time in between to give feedback on what you are doing > and how you are doing it, and from what I see that is effective and what is > not effective, and I say some things about it. But most people in open > source do not consider thinking about effectiveness to be an effective way > to spend your time, and I guess you are the same. > > And how should I know about your family and how you choose to spend your > time? If you have obligations you don't want, that's none of my business. > > I have an illness that basically takes a lot of time from me and causes me > not to be able to have or hold or try to get any kind of job, nor can I > finish my studies. That is also none of your business, the way it is stated. >
I am sorry to read that you are ill. I hope get better soon. Gary > > If you can't spend the time reflecting on your endeavours and your > efforts, well that is your problem not mine. And you also should not ask me > to make it my problem -- that you don't have time for that. > > I am giving the pristinely helpful advice to not go /begging/ yes BEGGING > for affection from other open source teams. That is basically what Gary > (And yes I am overreaching my bounds, because I do not know any of you yet) > (or still) (or whatever) and I am taking the liberty to call you by first > name as if I know you. Hurt me for it. Please do. > > That's basically what mr. Gregory is trying to do. I am just saying it > might not be as pristinely helpful to do it. To do that. I know I am > interfering with your business - what am I to it?.. > > But this is a pubic mailing list and I guess that's the nature of things. > > So sorry if I seem to be wasting my time on this. I guess I am, but that > depends on how welcome or effective it is in getting something through or > making someone happy, so to say. > > I'm just a sorry figure that can't do anything in life. I have no skills > and no abilities, I try to learn some and I fail. > > a) I am asking you to solve a specific problem but the specific problem is > the architectural problem of the dissinuation of API and Core. Lol. New > word. You can feel what it means I guess. The problem is that I had to > spend ample amounts of time just to get through the barrier of learning > ANYthing about what was hiding behind that public API. This is a real > problem and a documentation issue at the same time. You can't really expect > any new user to go through all of this effort or pain just to get > acquainted with the system. I am spending MY time such that the NEXT user > will not have to deal with that as I have. The core-api separation is a > problem in that it tries to dissuade, by its very nature, the user of even > *Learning* about the core, when the core is very much vital to the > operation of the machine if you want to have it your way. In other words, I > do not consider the API as it is presented (the public face) to be anything > any regular user should have to contend with or feel happy about. Hard > words perhaps, after all it is your love and brainchild. But I was left in > the dark, and it was cold. And it took me studying the source of > ConfigurationFactory (mostly) to begin to understand how I could get the > system to effectively do what I want. So that public API that is meant to > make life easier and to shield people from difficult things actually makes > life much more difficult the moment that public API is not enough, and it > would really be "not enough" for most people if they are true to > themselves. By making it a black and white proposition you are forcing > people to do much more work than if the separation (the shielding) had not > been made in the first place. So effectively, you might even say..... > > Let's call it a time-waster. > > Let's just say you have failed in your goal to design something that would > make a user be content with what the public API was offering and hence > create a condition in which that user would not need to reach for the Core > API. This is not the fact. This is not the case. I'm saying it is not the > case that an average user will not want to reach beyond the public API. I'm > saying you failed in that. > > Pretty immensely I must say. > > I am saying that you have shielded the (new) user so much that he/she > feels he is getting shielded from the stuff he needs. And I'm saying that > this may be (and is) one of the reasons that people are not all too > enthusiast of getting on the bandwagon because people sense this. > > What you claim as advantage is only 50% advantage and it is 50% > disadvantage. The API is meant to remain consistent between (major/minor) > versions but now you are already thinking of getting to a version 3 that > will change the public API. So where has been the benefit of the public > API? Has the core changed so much? It was only a short time ago that you > was still with version 1.2, I believe. > > I mean sorry if I'm being rough but I also don't have the time to be nicer > than this, I have better things to do also. > > I have no stats of course on usage numbers and perhaps neither do you I > don't know. From what I hear and see there are still very many people on > the older version. They would want to upgrade but really they don't. There > is something or multiple things holding them back, which makes the time > required (that you speak of) a bad investment. For what would be the > benefits? There are really none?.... > > You are wondering why, or you are asking people to upgrade, but the > investment seems to simply not pay off. It has a bad RoI. > > Me, I am even wondering, as a new user, whether 1.2 would not have been a > better choice. I sense that there are some... less pretty things to 1.2 > that would hold me off. There are probably some things that really > preferred an improvement or change, I don't know. I sense that you > yourselves are not entirely happy with what you ended up with. You feel it, > you know it. You can keep up the pretense (because you can't let people > know you have second thoughts) (or they'd think: if *they* are not even > happy, how could we be?) but everyone feels it and in the end that > determines your success. It's not what you say, but what you do. > > And if you are unhappy with something people will know it regardless, > whether you say it or not? So why not just publicly say it? At least then > you'll be understood and people will understand you and you will move > VASTLY closer to a solution or resolution in almost NO TIME AT ALL. Sorry > for the caps. > > I am saying that admitting to your own flaws (as the way I should as > well... ?.) puts you in the position where they start to evaporate almost > instantly. The moment you step into real communication with your > 'customers' those customers will stop staying at a distance and you and > they will move closer to each other, both, very rapidly. That's just the > way it works. That's what counselling is meant for. Maybe I'm an unwanted > or unwelcome counsellor, so be it ;-). > > > > > Op 15-8-2015 om 2:27 schreef Ralph Goers: > > Bart, We spent over 2 years asking for feedback during which we had 13 > releases prior to the GA release. We changed, many, many things. While you > are free to criticize Log4j 2 it really doesn’t accomplish much unless you > provide concrete detail on what should be changed and then expend some > effort to do that. > > Projects in the Apache Software Foundation are run by what is > affectionately called a “do-ocracy” - If you see something broken you fix > it, if there is a feature you want you create it. Creating Jira issues and > posting emails is great but in the end doesn’t accomplish much if no one > does anything about it. Everyone who works on Apache projects is a > volunteer. We do it because we choose to and because we want to, not > because we have to. > > The bottom line is that I have a day job that takes more than 40 hours per > week of my time. I have a family that requires my attention. I want to > write code and solve people’s problems when I have the time to work on > Log4j. I simply don’t have time to read long emails that a) don’t ask me > how to solve a specific problem, b) don’t ask for a specific feature to be > implemented, c) don’t ask me how to explain how something works or d) don’t > say “What can I do to help”. > > Please don’t take responses to you as people being rude. Please take them > as we are all busy and want to use our time effectively. > > Ralph > > On Aug 14, 2015, at 3:02 PM, Xen < <x...@dds.nl>x...@dds.nl> wrote: > > I just think... trying to persuade people like that is very needy. > > Ralph (Goers) doesn't give me the impression like he's needy like that ;-). > > It is clear that the new version is a bit out of tune with the goals these > other projects might have. The requirements for a logging package should be > a lowest common denominator thing. If the product is good, the other > projects should notice anyway and take notice themselves. I would focus on > documentation and clarity. You're a bit at odds with the times I think. Do > you have the interests of your users in mind, or of someone else? That's > what makes it hard to give a recommendation because it's just impossible. I > mean "to become more popular". If you feel the need to advertize or say > "hey, don't forget about us" so badly, that just means.... > > Well anybody can figure that out for himself I guess. But I was looking at > a topic called Update trunk to Java 7 from last May and it didn't seem like > their was an urgent need to do so. > > Well it means you are on the wrong tract or not feeling confident. > > Maybe you really feel like you need a call for attention, but.... ... .. . > . . . .. ..... > > Everybody already knows you lol. Your name is well-known. It just seems > like everyone is stuck using 1.2. Stuckerdiestuckstuckstuck. You might want > to send out for an honest appraisal or feedback. > > Ask the question of whether Log4J 2 meets their goals. Ask the question of > whether 2.3 meets or met their goals. Ask the question of whether 2.4 meets > or will meet their goals. Ask what they want from a logging package. Don't > forget to mention the issues: Java 7. Public vs. Core -- do they like that? > Are they impressed by a separation of public versus implementation API? If > they have experience with the product, do they feel the need to use Core > functionality that is not normally directly accessible from Public?. Did > they feel their needs were respected when the move to 2 was made? Do they > feel the EOL of v1 has been a necessary or required or helpful thing?. What > are their needs and interests? How do they feel about having to use two > jars? I would seriously consider asking these questions, all of them. > > So don't ask for uptake, ask for feedback. I think that is the best > suggestion or advice I can offer. Ask them whether you are on the right > path. Ask this of your fellow Apache projects. Do that and you will do > well, or better, in the future. If such a thing as 'better' would exist, > but you can always do better than what you were before. > > And that's true of everyone everywhere. That's just true of life. > > Regards, B. > > > Op 14-8-2015 om 23:34 schreef Gary Gregory: > > Something to think about after we get 2.4 out the door... > > Do you think it appropriate for us to do some kind of outreach to other > Apache projects and say "hey, about about use log4j 2?" > > Gary > > -- > E-Mail: <garydgreg...@gmail.com>garydgreg...@gmail.com | ggreg...@apache.org > > Java Persistence with Hibernate, Second Edition > <http://www.manning.com/bauer3/> > JUnit in Action, Second Edition <http://www.manning.com/tahchiev/> > Spring Batch in Action <http://www.manning.com/templier/> > Blog: http://garygregory.wordpress.com > Home: http://garygregory.com/ > Tweet! http://twitter.com/GaryGregory > > > > > -- E-Mail: garydgreg...@gmail.com | ggreg...@apache.org Java Persistence with Hibernate, Second Edition <http://www.manning.com/bauer3/> JUnit in Action, Second Edition <http://www.manning.com/tahchiev/> Spring Batch in Action <http://www.manning.com/templier/> Blog: http://garygregory.wordpress.com Home: http://garygregory.com/ Tweet! http://twitter.com/GaryGregory
