I appreciate the passion. I wish it can be put to constructive use for log4j 2 :-)
You might find it of interest that there is a recent mail thread to discuss having Log4j 2 process properties-based configurations, as we did in 1.2. Maybe the 1.2 compatibility module is an area that would be of interest to you. WRT Java versions, Java 6 has been EOL for a while. Java 7 has some good incremental changes. Java 8 has lambdas, finally. Gary On Fri, Aug 14, 2015 at 12:26 PM, Xen <x...@dds.nl> wrote: > Op 14-8-2015 om 19:10 schreef Douglas Wegscheid: > >> That's clearly a lie. You wouldn't say these things if you were really >>> happy and really convinced it'd be a replacement. That is make believe. >>> In >>> that case you'd say something like >>> >>> easy there. that's pretty harsh treatment of other list participants, and >> presumptuous to state you know what someone else is thinking/feeling. >> > > I would say that that is the biggest lie ;-). Knowing how another is > feeling is a perfect skill and essence and even requirement of many > branches of sports. It forms the basis of seduction (of women) but also of > knowing what to say and when to say it. It forms the basis of persuasion, > and really of any sort of dealing with people who might have goals of > whatever sort and are manouvring against you or with you. Knowing how > another is feeling is the requirement of knowing how to help the person, > and listening, being quiet and silent and observing, perceiving, is the > essence of knowing how another is feeling. > > It is rather the thought that you /can't /know how another is feeling that > is a false belief that is perpetrated and perpetuated amongst certain > classes of professions, mostly, particularly those that deal with mental > health care, to say not the least. > > Any person that runs a professional business of some sophistication > (helping clients with their needs) definitely requires knowing how another > is feeling, because otherwise you can't know the person and cannot create > or offer something that the person will really like. You have to be in tune > with another, otherwise you might just as well quit. > > It requires to listen and to look, something at which obviously women are > usually better, but anyone can do it really. It requires to wait and not > jump to a conclusion immediately, but also to trust your instincts and > intuitions and go with them. > > > >> keeping an employer happy is not an ulterior motive. People like to be >> able >> to pay their bills. >> > > It is ulterior to the project if the project is an open source project > with stated community goals. If then your actual motives are dictated by > your current employer, -- not necessarily saying they are here, THAT would > be presumptuous -- instead of by the community's needs (or the desire of > the product itself to evolve in whatever direction) -- the creative impetus > -- then you could say design choices and commitments are being made that > fly in the face of what everyone else needs, but which may not be obvious > to the casual bystander, who is left to wonder "why?". > > Often in life, when people do things that seem to be outrageously > incomprehensible or from the surface look if it, downright stupid, or > destructive, you may not be in the knowing as to what their true goals > really are. This happens often in politics I believe. You do not know why a > politician is making a certain move. And because he is not telling you the > truth about it, it seems incomprehensible to you that he would still do > that thing given the reasons he cites, because /they are not his real > reasons/. Were you to know his real reasons, everything becomes logical > again. > > In this case I also feel that there are personal reasons here for the > version push. That I don't understand really from my position and lack of > knowledge about this all. So what I am saying is that there is a "why?" > that I do not understand really. I can feel that it is there, and I can > feel that there are probably some (?)important people who /really want it > to happen/ but I don't know who they are and where they are hiding ;-) so > to speak, to say it a bit belligerently. (Seriously, I know English words > that I never remember having ever seen). > > When Kubuntu had released version 15.04 Jonathan Riddell, the guy who got > so in the dispute with the Ubuntu Community Council (if I may be allowed to > say anything about it as a bystander) ...--- immediately without pause went > to planning for version 15.10. Not a moment to waste, straight ahead, no > reflection, no looking back. I told him to pause, he said it was not > constructive to say that. > > What he didn't say and what I didn't know, but what another member told me > ; -) was that he is a full time employee on Kubuntu so given the nature of > his work he would have to perhaps /take days off/ in order to take a break. > He had to stop working his dayjob in order to sit back and relax and look > back! That was the missing piece of information that explained his > behaviour for about 40-60%. > > ;-). > > > agreed. but let's be objective about what life is like in the "obsolete >> server" space: you aren't typically deploying radically new code there >> that >> introduces new logging dependencies, either! log4j2 requires java 6, I >> have >> a few boxes that don't support that, but very few. >> > > Okay, right. Still I feel the version push is too fast. I don't know what > the reasons are for it. Supposing I wanted to run on older systems, I might > then need to drop Log4j 2 and go with v1 just for a few of those systems. > It's not that I have these outrageous demands on what my logging needs to > do, far from it, probably. It's just that I happen to be using the newest > version, not for its features, but for its advancement in the API, for > example. I would then be given the choice to either stick completely to > e.g. 2.3, which is rotten, being stuck in a mid-way version is just silly. > My own improvements would then be insensible, what reason would there be to > do anything for it?. > > Of course its'the same with Kubuntu and Plasma 4 /5 . Developing for KDE 4 > gets kinda ....deadening when you are the only one doing it (for instance). > So there'd be another choice: > > fork the project and strip away all the higher language versions. > Featuronality. I don't even know what the new version is going to use that > requires java 7?. > > I only really saw two things of interest in my quick/non-quick perousal. > One was mult-threaded class loaders, and the other is the diamond notation > for generics. I don't know what else?. > > Why is it going to need Java 7? > > It is written that Java 7 has already reached EOL back in April. But still > on a general Linux system it is the only thing you can install, at least on > a conservative system like Debian. The Ubuntus probably have Java 8, for > example. > > I see a lot of stuff in Java 7 and 8 that I don't understand (yet), but >> that doesn't make me say "java 8 is a step backward"; usually I have (and >> exercise) the option to ignore changes that I don't yet see the value of. >> I >> could keep writing what I've always written, and appreciate the fact that >> I >> am getting security updates. >> > > Of course yeah, agreed, same. I do believe the Java 8 JDK has become a > much (?) larger download than Java 7. On bad links I am tempted to search > for Java 7 just so my download size is smaller. > > Most of the stuff that's been added over time has increased my productivity >> immensely once I've invested the time to master it (this is from the >> standpoint of someone making a living writing Java since v1.1). For most >> of >> the stuff I do, my customer is happier if I stamp the stuff out quickly, >> rather than agonize over every decision from a performance standpoint (for >> a lot of stuff, machines are cheaper than programming time). I realize >> that >> is not the case, especially on very large systems; adding more hardware >> there gets expen$ive. >> > > That's cool. I would love to learn more about it as well. Currently I 'm > doing the max of what I can digest though and it is not fun. Configuring a > Linux VPS and and all that. > > go ahead and just write Java 5 code, compile and run it with 7 or 8, and be >> happy! >> >> > Of course I can do that but not if my logging library requires greater. > Right? Or should I (be able to) write against slf4j and then run on older > systems by binding to an older version of Log4j?. > -- 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
