My plan is to write some code and then ask for feedback. That seems to have worked well for us in the past.
Sent from my iPad > On Aug 15, 2015, at 8:36 AM, Gary Gregory <[email protected]> wrote: > >> On Sat, Aug 15, 2015 at 4:38 AM, Xen <[email protected]> wrote: >> <snip> >> >> 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. > > <snip> > >> 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. > > <snip> > > I think we are also in limbo so to speak as to what to do WRT providing a > programmatic interface for configuration. We have factory methods, a few > builder classes, but probably not a clear road map. We all need to think > about the big picture before we continue sprinkling builder classes all over > the place. > > Should such an API be part of the Core or a new log4j-config module where all > configuration code would sit? We probably still do not want it as part of the > public API? Should the config API aim to configure the Core or any supported > logging back-end? Surely we would only start with the Core and worry about > the rest later. Or should we? I'm asking a lot of questions I know. > > How do we even discuss this via emails? That's a lot of writing! Is there are > better way to discuss this instead? > > Gary > > >> >> >> >> >> 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 <[email protected]> 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: [email protected] | [email protected] >>>>> Java Persistence with Hibernate, Second Edition >>>>> JUnit in Action, Second Edition >>>>> Spring Batch in Action >>>>> Blog: http://garygregory.wordpress.com >>>>> Home: http://garygregory.com/ >>>>> Tweet! http://twitter.com/GaryGregory > > > > -- > E-Mail: [email protected] | [email protected] > Java Persistence with Hibernate, Second Edition > JUnit in Action, Second Edition > Spring Batch in Action > Blog: http://garygregory.wordpress.com > Home: http://garygregory.com/ > Tweet! http://twitter.com/GaryGregory
