Just to clarify...
> 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
Although I agree with what you're saying entirely, that wasn't my point.
I didn't mean to imply that Log4J is less stable than any other released
software. I meant to say that as soon as I start interfacing with any
3rd party software, I am potentially introducing bugs in that interface.
alan
-----Original Message-----
From: Paul Smith [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, April 29, 2004 5:00 PM
To: 'Log4J Users List'
Subject: RE: An odd configuration need...
> 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]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
