Greetings,
Since yesterday evening a non-negligible number of requests were directed to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] I find Ellis Teer's comments (included below) quite
interesting.
My critique of the JSR47 API can be found at:
http://jakarta.apache.org/log4j/docs/critique.html
If you agree with its contents, you are encouraged to send your own comments to
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Thanks, Ceki
>Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2001 18:35:16 -0700 (PDT)
>From: Ellis Teer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Subject: JSR47 vs. log4j
>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>To whom it may concern,
>
>I feel that the differences between log4j and the JSR47 API outlined at the
>following URL are significant.
>
>http://jakarta.apache.org/log4j/docs/critique.html
>
>I also feel, that rather than reinventing the wheel the JSR47 group should
>incorporate the log4j API rather than recreating it. The standards put forth
>by the JSR group will eventually replace any similarly functioning external API
>due to its incorporation into the JDK. For the number of people who already
>use log4j, such as myself, it feels that Sun by way of including this new API
>in the JDK is forcing users of log4j to switch. I understand that there are
>licensing issues but I suspect Ceki would be accommodating in this regard.
>
>In addition, by incorporating such projects into the API rather than recreating
>them from scratch I believe Sun will promote more projects like these to move
>forward rather than possibly dissuading programmers from creating new API's for
>fear that their work will become useless by Sun's recreation of their features
>in the next JDK.
>
>I point to the success of Tomcat as an example.
>
>Sincerely,
>
>-Ellis Teer
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
