> The reason that my company won't use alpha code but will > write on top of > released code is that we contain the scope of our risk. If I > just write > one class and everything else is stable and trusted then our risk is > much lower than using an unstable release where our developers would > have to be responsible for understanding (and potentially > maintaining) a > whole extra tree of code. That may be fine for internal > projects where > crashes, and data losses might be more acceptable, but I wouldn't want > my paycheck riding on it. >
All valid points. I used to be of the same mind, until I realised that when you have complete access to the source, you can somewhat minimise that risk, but I agree that is not for everyone. > Whenever I use Log4J, it could be said that I'm potentially > introducing > bugs. Actually, whenever you use Microsoft products, or even a Database server you put portions of your risk in someone elses hands, production or not, but you are right, in that it is a risk management thinking process. >So I look at writing an extra class as just more of that risk. > But much as I love the tool, I wouldn't put an alpha release in > production unless I was part of the log4j development team. > And that's > not because I think I'm a particularly good developer, but > just because > I know I'd be able to debug any issues quickly if I was > working with it > regularly and I'd have a clear perception of the state of the code. > Yes, that could be why I feel the current 1.3 state feels ok to use. Paul --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
