+1
Paulo
-Original Message-
From: Sam Ruby [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Monday, February 04, 2002 4:25 AM
To: Jakarta Commons Developers List
Subject: Re: [Logging] [VOTE] Commons Logging 1.0 Release
Ted Husted wrote:
As for myself, I'm in the camp that says the sky
Answer inline:
-Original Message-
From: Geir Magnusson Jr. [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Monday, February 04, 2002 4:02 AM
On 2/3/02 7:56 PM, Paulo Gaspar [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Answer inline:
-Original Message-
From: Geir Magnusson Jr. [mailto:[EMAIL
Inline...
-Original Message-
From: Geir Magnusson Jr. [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Monday, February 04, 2002 4:28 AM
We have the ability to affect change on this thing I believe is a problem.
(One answer is It's not a problem I suppose...)
The only answers I hear are Things
On 2/4/02 6:43 AM, Paulo Gaspar [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Inline...
-Original Message-
From: Geir Magnusson Jr. [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Monday, February 04, 2002 4:28 AM
We have the ability to affect change on this thing I believe is a problem.
(One answer is It's not a
depending on the mother project.
Have fun,
Paulo
-Original Message-
From: Aaron Smuts [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Monday, February 04, 2002 5:24 AM
To: 'Jakarta Commons Developers List'
Subject: RE: [Logging] [VOTE] Commons Logging 1.0 Release
It doesn't sound like
PM
To: Jakarta Commons Developers List
Subject: Re: [Logging] [VOTE] Commons Logging 1.0 Release
On 2/4/02 6:43 AM, Paulo Gaspar [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Inline...
-Original Message-
From: Geir Magnusson Jr. [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Monday, February 04, 2002 4:28
-Original Message-
From: Geir Magnusson Jr. [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Monday, February 04, 2002 12:40 PM
To: Jakarta Commons Developers List
Subject: Re: [Logging] [VOTE] Commons Logging 1.0 Release
On 2/4/02 6:43 AM, Paulo Gaspar [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Inline
:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Monday, February 04, 2002 12:40 PM
To: Jakarta Commons Developers List
Subject: Re: [Logging] [VOTE] Commons Logging 1.0 Release
On 2/4/02 6:43 AM, Paulo Gaspar [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Inline...
-Original Message-
From: Geir Magnusson Jr
-Original Message-
From: Geir Magnusson Jr. [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Monday, February 04, 2002 1:08 PM
On 2/4/02 7:08 AM, Paulo Gaspar [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
...
If you are sure that everybody else understood your POV and everybody
is against, THEN it is the time to
On Sun, 3 Feb 2002, Paulo Gaspar wrote:
I am already a convert. If you keep writing this kind of stuff I will
soon become an enthusiast of this line of reasoning and start preaching
to the masses too.
=;o)
Well, I'm already sorry about that... I have a lot of other things to
do, but Peter
]
Subject: RE: [Logging] [VOTE] Commons Logging 1.0 Release
On Sun, 3 Feb 2002, Paulo Gaspar wrote:
I am already a convert. If you keep writing this kind of stuff I will
soon become an enthusiast of this line of reasoning and start preaching
to the masses too.
=;o)
Well, I'm already
PROTECTED]]
Sent: Sunday, February 03, 2002 7:54 PM
To: Jakarta Commons Developers List
Subject: Re: [Logging] [VOTE] Commons Logging 1.0 Release
On 2/3/02 1:39 PM, Paulo Gaspar [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It is not for you to be sorry. I am a happy convert.
Keep going. Myabe you manage
: Geir Magnusson Jr. [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Sunday, February 03, 2002 7:54 PM
To: Jakarta Commons Developers List
Subject: Re: [Logging] [VOTE] Commons Logging 1.0 Release
On 2/3/02 1:39 PM, Paulo Gaspar [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It is not for you to be sorry. I am a happy convert
Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
I think it comes to trusting someone in a specific domain of expertise. For
other jakarta projects (generally speaking) it is my impression that people
are committers because of expertise in areas related to that specific
project and are trusted by others *in that
On 2/3/02 3:00 PM, Ted Husted [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
I think it comes to trusting someone in a specific domain of expertise. For
other jakarta projects (generally speaking) it is my impression that people
are committers because of expertise in areas related to
Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
Without resorting to legal reasons, and actually going into the
hypothetical, why wouldn't we let Bryan into the sandbox to pursue Simper
with other Commons committers?
I don't hand out the karma around here, so it's not my decision.
If someone asked me to vote on
Geir Magnusson wrote:
Care to take that to the logical conclusion?
PROPOSAL : Grant CVS read/write to anyone subscribed to the mail list.
Make it automatic upon subscription to save root@ the time for configuration
and the community time for voting. After all, any list subscriber is a
Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
No - I think Jakarta is getting too big. But that's for another list. My
problem with governance of commons is different. Very specific, and
different.
I hope commons grows to *hundreds* of well crafted, well documented, well
supported components.
So take this
Ted Husted wrote:
As for myself, I'm in the camp that says the sky isn't falling.
+1
- Sam Ruby
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 2/3/02 10:16 PM, Sam Ruby [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Geir Magnusson wrote:
Care to take that to the logical conclusion?
PROPOSAL : Grant CVS read/write to anyone subscribed to the mail list.
Make it automatic upon subscription to save root@ the time for configuration
and the community
On Sun, 3 Feb 2002, Sam Ruby wrote:
I have worked along side Costin on Tomcat 3.x.. To my knowledge he has no
specific expertise in SOAP or in the Axis code base. If he had a change he
wanted to make there, I would trust his judgement. Besides, I know the cvs
commands to back out a
The vote was on a release, and the vote passed.
An issue regarding attribution was resolved. The committers are still
honing some fine points, but the package is on it's way.
Apparently, Peter feels that I have been stymied by committers who
vetoed things but had never done
anywork and never
On Sun, 3 Feb 2002, Peter Donald wrote:
You mean users can become developers by participating?
That's how open source works, Peter !
Almost all developers around here are users who choosed to participate.
Which is precisely my point - thanks for demonstrating it ;)
Choosing to
On Fri, 1 Feb 2002 05:06, Scott Sanders wrote:
What needs to be changed Peter?
People who dont contribute to a component dont get voting rights over a
component.
Explicitly state it in a
proposal/vote/patch and let's do it.
I have proposed it several times before. If you go back to the
To: Jakarta Commons Developers List
Subject: Re: [Logging] [VOTE] Commons Logging 1.0 Release
On Fri, 1 Feb 2002 05:06, Scott Sanders wrote:
What needs to be changed Peter?
People who dont contribute to a component dont get voting rights over a
component.
Explicitly state
Paulo Gaspar wrote:
So, I agree with Peter: the commons will get too big and has a
too loose structure to control things like this (which is still
not the case with Avalon).
I am not sure about how strictly one should regulate that, but
maybe it is necessary.
I think the only recourse
(*) I have no idea what 'small' really means :)
Let a person's code speak.
Scott
-Original Message-
From: Peter Donald [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2002 12:05 PM
To: Jakarta Commons Developers List
Subject: Re: [Logging] [VOTE] Commons Logging 1.0
On 2/1/02 3:49 PM, Remy Maucherat [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So, I agree with Peter: the commons will get too big and has a
too loose structure to control things like this (which is still
not the case with Avalon).
Which is also why I don't want to use Avalon to put my shared code.
When you
On 2/1/02 4:00 PM, Ted Husted [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Paulo Gaspar wrote:
So, I agree with Peter: the commons will get too big and has a
too loose structure to control things like this (which is still
not the case with Avalon).
I am not sure about how strictly one should regulate that,
On 2/1/02 4:13 PM, Remy Maucherat [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Geir :
On 2/1/02 3:49 PM, Remy Maucherat [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So, I agree with Peter: the commons will get too big and has a
too loose structure to control things like this (which is still
not the case with Avalon).
Which
-Original Message-
From: Geir Magnusson Jr. [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday, February 01, 2002 1:16 PM
To: Jakarta Commons Developers List
Subject: Re: [Logging] [VOTE] Commons Logging 1.0 Release
snip/
No thanks. That would mean that I could lead another project
off
-Original Message-
From: Scott Sanders
Sent: Friday, February 01, 2002 1:17 PM
To: Jakarta Commons Developers List
Subject: RE: [Logging] [VOTE] Commons Logging 1.0 Release
-Original Message-
From: Geir Magnusson Jr. [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday, February 01, 2002 1:16
On 2/1/02 4:46 PM, Scott Sanders [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
From: Geir Magnusson Jr. [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Scott :
Avalon has a mission, and all its committers are on board. I agree
with this.
Commons has a mission, and all its committers are on board.
I do not
see a difference.
-Original Message-
From: Geir Magnusson Jr. [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday, February 01, 2002 1:49 PM
To: Jakarta Commons Developers List
Subject: Re: [Logging] [VOTE] Commons Logging 1.0 Release
On 2/1/02 4:15 PM, Scott Sanders [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote
Scott Sanders wrote:
Doesn't avalon also compartmentalize the project?
They compartmentalize CVS, but do they compartmentalize commit access?
No. Commit to any avalon cvs tree is currently a commit to all.
- Sam Ruby
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional
:05 PM
To: Jakarta Commons Developers List
Subject: Re: [Logging] [VOTE] Commons Logging 1.0 Release
On Fri, 1 Feb 2002, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
On 2/1/02 3:43 PM, Scott Sanders [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
How do you enforce this? How do you handle this in the Avalon
world? I
Costin Manolache wrote:
I believe we would be better served with the commons model in
apache/jakarta.
That is my opinion too.
- Sam Ruby
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-Original Message-
From: Scott Sanders [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday, February 01, 2002 4:56 PM
To: Jakarta Commons Developers List
Subject: RE: [Logging] [VOTE] Commons Logging 1.0 Release
He voted -1 on a release. He stated his viewpoint. Does
that stop
List
Subject: Re: [Logging] [VOTE] Commons Logging 1.0 Release
On Fri, 1 Feb 2002, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
On 2/1/02 3:43 PM, Scott Sanders [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
How do you enforce this? How do you handle this in the Avalon
world? I consider (only just recently, BTW
On 2/1/02 5:04 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, 1 Feb 2002, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
On 2/1/02 3:43 PM, Scott Sanders [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
How do you enforce this? How do you handle this in the Avalon world? I
consider (only just recently, BTW), that a
On Sat, 2 Feb 2002 06:41, Steve Downey wrote:
OK, I'm not a committer, merely a client, but it seems to me that all Peter
proved is that he can act childishly. His position is that he doesn't trust
the other committers.
I wouldn't say that - merely that it should work like a meritocracy (like
On Sat, 2 Feb 2002 08:48, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
Peter probably has nothing to do with some of the server components in
Avalon, but he has a binding vote for them. How is that resolved? That
is the same problem.
I don't know enough about Avalon and Peter's role. Doesn't seem to be
On Sat, 2 Feb 2002 07:49, Scott Sanders wrote:
snip/
Explicitly state it in a
proposal/vote/patch and let's do it.
I have proposed it several times before. If you go back to
the original vote
for commons you will see that I only started waving the
Avalon duplication
flag after
I agree as well. Gump has shown us the light, and the light is warm and
feel very good ;-)
-Original Message-
From: Sam Ruby [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday, February 01, 2002 2:10 PM
To: Jakarta Commons Developers List
Subject: Re: [Logging] [VOTE] Commons Logging 1.0
On 2/1/02 5:20 PM, Peter Donald [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sat, 2 Feb 2002 08:48, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
Peter probably has nothing to do with some of the server components in
Avalon, but he has a binding vote for them. How is that resolved? That
is the same problem.
I don't know
-Original Message-
From: Geir Magnusson Jr. [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday, February 01, 2002 2:17 PM
To: Jakarta Commons Developers List
Subject: Re: [Logging] [VOTE] Commons Logging 1.0 Release
On 2/1/02 4:54 PM, Scott Sanders [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
From: Geir
-Original Message-
From: Peter Donald [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday, February 01, 2002 2:16 PM
To: Jakarta Commons Developers List
Subject: Re: [Logging] [VOTE] Commons Logging 1.0 Release
On Sat, 2 Feb 2002 08:55, Scott Sanders wrote:
Explain that then from
-Original Message-
From: Geir Magnusson Jr. [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday, February 01, 2002 2:51 PM
To: Jakarta Commons Developers List
Subject: Re: [Logging] [VOTE] Commons Logging 1.0 Release
On 2/1/02 5:50 PM, Paulo Gaspar [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Answer
must start
following Avalon-dev.
Have fun,
Paulo Gaspar
-Original Message-
From: Geir Magnusson Jr. [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday, February 01, 2002 11:51 PM
To: Jakarta Commons Developers List
Subject: Re: [Logging] [VOTE] Commons Logging 1.0 Release
On 2/1/02 5:50 PM
Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
However, Avalon existed before commons. Why didn't we just work in
Avalon again?
If Avalon looked the way then as it looks now, we might have.
But it was a very different Avalon a year ago.
-- Ted Husted, Husted dot Com, Fairport NY USA.
-- Java Web
On 2/1/02 5:49 PM, Scott Sanders [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[SNIP]
Scott :
But, then again, why not just create top-level projects
whose clear
goal is to do 'x'?
Geir :
Too many of them. Hard to manage, hard to present...
Scott :
Already there, IMHO. At least if we added
On 2/1/02 5:55 PM, Ted Husted [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
People who actually Do Things seem to do the Right Things. Non-doing is
what causes problems.
And we have no gate right now for 'non-doers'. Peter showed that they can
affect things they couldn't meddle with in a meritocratic system.
Paulo Gaspar wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Peter Donald [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday, February 01, 2002 11:21 PM
To: Jakarta Commons Developers List
Subject: Re: [Logging] [VOTE] Commons Logging 1.0 Release
...
Avalon is no more or less coherent than Commons.
...
Even
On 2/1/02 5:57 PM, Scott Sanders [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Geir Magnusson Jr. [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday, February 01, 2002 2:57 PM
To: Jakarta Commons Developers List
Subject: Re: [Logging] [VOTE] Commons Logging 1.0 Release
Ok - describe
On 2/1/02 6:02 PM, Ted Husted [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
However, Avalon existed before commons. Why didn't we just work in
Avalon again?
If Avalon looked the way then as it looks now, we might have.
But it was a very different Avalon a year ago.
On 2/1/02 5:52 PM, Scott Sanders [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Geir Magnusson Jr. [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday, February 01, 2002 2:51 PM
To: Jakarta Commons Developers List
Subject: Re: [Logging] [VOTE] Commons Logging 1.0 Release
On 2/1/02 5:50
- Original Message -
From: Ted Husted [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Jakarta Commons Developers List [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, February 01, 2002 5:02 PM
Subject: Re: [Logging] [VOTE] Commons Logging 1.0 Release
Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
However, Avalon existed before commons. Why
- Original Message -
From: Sam Ruby [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Jakarta Commons Developers List [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, February 01, 2002 4:10 PM
Subject: Re: [Logging] [VOTE] Commons Logging 1.0 Release
Costin Manolache wrote:
I believe we would be better served with the commons
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
- Original Message -
From: Sam Ruby [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Jakarta Commons Developers List [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, February 01, 2002 4:10 PM
Subject: Re: [Logging] [VOTE] Commons Logging 1.0 Release
Costin Manolache wrote:
I believe we would
- Original Message -
From: Geir Magnusson Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Jakarta Commons Developers List [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, February 01, 2002 5:21 PM
Subject: Re: [Logging] [VOTE] Commons Logging 1.0 Release
Nice, well-thought out post. I was a 'Peter' then and now
Commons Developers List [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, February 01, 2002 5:28 PM
Subject: RE: [Logging] [VOTE] Commons Logging 1.0 Release
+1. Let's just drop the status file. I believe that Ted mentioned that
in my proposal for the update to the charter, which has now been deluged
On Sat, 2 Feb 2002 10:16, Morgan Delagrange wrote:
Some developers proposed that all Jakarta members should get Karma to
Commons automatically. In essence, you would have been able to commit
directly to the Commons repository at any time, even if you had made no
contributions to the Commons
-Original Message-
From: Geir Magnusson Jr. [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday, February 01, 2002 3:42 PM
To: Jakarta Commons Developers List
Subject: Re: [Logging] [VOTE] Commons Logging 1.0 Release
On 2/1/02 6:34 PM, Peter Donald [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sat, 2
Ted Husted wrote:
The true fact is the PMC Chair has total authority over the Jakareta
codebase, and can drop anyone's access anytime. The votes are an
important courtesy, like a jury trial, but the ASF can set aside our
verdict any time they choose.
Technically true. But in practice it is
Many reusable components are only tied to the framework by a couple
of interfaces and would work without the framework being active.
(I grabbed a lot of stuff from Avalon.)
The levels of architecture design are quite high at Avalon.
Have fun,
Paulo Gaspar
-Original Message-
From:
: [Logging] [VOTE] Commons Logging 1.0 Release
The original idea of adding your name to the STATUS files was just to
help keep track of who was working on what. Not because of voting or
anything, but so people who know who to ping without digging through the
combined CVS or GREPing for @authors
On Sat, 2 Feb 2002, Peter Donald wrote:
Separate voting rights not commit rights. Only people who show commitment to
a product should be able to have binding votes on it.
_Using_ a commons component in another jakarta project is a huge
commitment to that component. The rule is there to make
Peter Donald wrote:
Funnily enough Costins model == Peters model. Go back and read stuff - I
believe CVS should be open across the board as does Sam IIRC - Jon was
very opposed to it though so it didn't get done ;)
Separate voting rights not commit rights. Only people who show commitment to
On Sat, 2 Feb 2002 11:13, Sam Ruby wrote:
Peter Donald wrote:
Funnily enough Costins model == Peters model. Go back and read stuff - I
believe CVS should be open across the board as does Sam IIRC - Jon was
very opposed to it though so it didn't get done ;)
Separate voting rights not
I agree with the sentiment, which is WHY I think that a committer is a
committer is a committer...
Scott
-Original Message-
From: Sam Ruby [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday, February 01, 2002 4:13 PM
To: Jakarta Commons Developers List
Subject: Re: [Logging] [VOTE] Commons
On Sat, 2 Feb 2002, Peter Donald wrote:
Separate voting rights not commit rights. Only people who show
commitment to
a product should be able to have binding votes on it.
_Using_ a commons component in another jakarta project is a huge
commitment to that component. The rule is there to
But it is important to note that a Committers veto is not an absolute.
If a Committer were insane, there can be (and has been) a redress of
grievances at an executive level.
The voting process does not need to be foolproof; it just needs to get
us through the day, keep good code flowing into the
On 2/1/02 7:05 PM, Ted Husted [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The original idea of adding your name to the STATUS files was just to
help keep track of who was working on what. Not because of voting or
anything, but so people who know who to ping without digging through the
combined CVS or GREPing
On Wed, 30 Jan 2002 19:41, Sam Ruby wrote:
At the time commons was created, Avalon was notorious for changing
interfaces without even so much as a moments notice. The rationalle given
was that Avalon was still in alpha - interminably so.
And here he goes again. Interesting comment given that
Sam,
Another perspective is that inter subproject sharing at a granularity lower
than the subproject has rarely been successful.
Things originally identified as reusable components often ended up getting
dependencies on ever increasing portions of the subproject.
At the time commons was
Paul Hammant wrote:
We frequently reach out to other teams in very polite, respectful and
concilliatory terms.
Time for a little commit relief:
My name is Avalon Server Famework, Commander of the Servers of Java,
General
of the component Legions, loyal servant to the true emperor,
Peter Donald wrote:
At the time commons was created, Avalon was notorious for changing
interfaces without even so much as a moments notice. The rationalle
given
was that Avalon was still in alpha - interminably so.
And here he goes again. Interesting comment given that you know the
On Wed, 30 Jan 2002 19:41, Sam Ruby wrote:
At the time commons was created, Avalon was notorious for changing
interfaces without even so much as a moments notice. The rationalle
given
was that Avalon was still in alpha - interminably so.
And here he goes again. Interesting comment given
On Wed, 30 Jan 2002 20:33, Sam Ruby wrote:
This being said, I should have added, this problem has been since been
addressed quite satisfactorily.
since - Oh really?
Why is it that you always tend to say these things and then qualify them
after the fact? Hmmm.
--
Cheers,
Pete
Folks,
We frequently reach out to other teams in very polite, respectful and
concilliatory terms.
Time for a little commit relief:
My name is Avalon Server Famework, Commander of the Servers of Java,
General
of the component Legions, loyal servant to the true emperor, Inversion of
Control.
. McClanahan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2002 3:16 AM
To: Jakarta Commons Developers List; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [Logging] [VOTE] Commons Logging 1.0 Release
On Wed, 30 Jan 2002, Paulo Gaspar wrote:
Besides, Craig used Avalon code for the JSR47
] Commons Logging
1.0 Release]
On Wed, 30 Jan 2002 21:11, Remy Maucherat wrote:
Nice attempt at rewriting history, but I had been using Avalon
before you
actually joined the project, and I gave up somwhere afterwards.
Gump keep
detailed records about what changes, but the devlopment
the
spirit of a package subverted.
Have fun,
Paulo Gaspar
-Original Message-
From: Peter Donald [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2002 11:12 AM
To: Jakarta Commons Developers List
Subject: Re: Commons/Avalon [was Re: [Logging] [VOTE] Commons Logging
1.0 Release
On 1/29/02 2:46 PM, Craig R. McClanahan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm glad there is more than one choice in logging frameworks in the world,
with differing feature sets and philosophies. I just want to avoid having
a Commons component that wants to do logging (such as Digester or
BeanUtils)
On 1/29/02 3:11 PM, robert burrell donkin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tuesday, January 29, 2002, at 07:39 PM, Berin Loritsch wrote:
Scott Sanders wrote:
Berin, I think that I understand how you feel, and although the
abstraction was implemented outside of Avalon, I do believe that Avalon
On 1/29/02 3:56 PM, Waldhoff, Rodney [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
you may want to consider making the parameters
Strings not objects. They were made strings so that
you could render objects with Log4j. No other logging
toolkit does this. Thus if this is allowed/used you are
directly binding to
find
a great idea.
Have fun,
Paulo Gaspar
-Original Message-
From: Geir Magnusson Jr. [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2002 12:56 PM
To: Jakarta Commons Developers List
Subject: Re: [Logging] [VOTE] Commons Logging 1.0 Release
...
Just to throw another
Developers List
Subject: Re: [Logging] [VOTE] Commons Logging 1.0 Release
...
Just to throw another log on the fire...
We did too in Velocity-land, and built the following, a while ago :
1) Simple interface through which Velocity would happily log into any
supplied class/object
Peter Donald wrote:
On Wed, 30 Jan 2002 21:11, Remy Maucherat wrote:
Nice attempt at rewriting history, but I had been using Avalon before you
actually joined the project, and I gave up somwhere afterwards. Gump keep
detailed records about what changes, but the devlopment of Avalon was even
Paulo Gaspar wrote:
He is very oppinionated, its true, but he *can* be convinced. You just
have to be persistent, and explain your thinking clearly.
I even think that Peter is easier to convince than Berin!!!
]:o)
:)
It depends on the issue. Both Peter and I are sticklers for what is
Paulo Gaspar wrote:
Well, in a way you already had credit from Avalon several times.
I already saw several posts from Peter mentioning ideas he got
from Avalon and he often exhibits a lot of knowledge about its
internals.
In is a pity that Peter and Ceki do not have a better
Craig R. McClanahan wrote:
On Wed, 30 Jan 2002, Paulo Gaspar wrote:
Besides, Craig used Avalon code for the JSR47 wrapper
To be precise, I based this on the code Paulo posted to COMMONS-DEV a
while back, which were in a non-Avalon Java package (maybe this is what
you proposed
-
From: Berin Loritsch [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2002 2:46 PM
To: Jakarta Commons Developers List
Subject: Re: [Logging] [VOTE] Commons Logging 1.0 Release
Paulo Gaspar wrote:
He is very oppinionated, its true, but he *can* be convinced. You just
have
Message-
From: Sam Ruby [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2002 2:27 PM
To: Jakarta Commons Developers List
Subject: Re: Commons/Avalon [was Re: [Logging] [VOTE] Commons Logging
1.0 Release]
Peter Donald wrote:
On Wed, 30 Jan 2002 21:11, Remy Maucherat wrote
PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2002 1:47 PM
To: Jakarta Commons Developers List
Subject: Re: [Logging] [VOTE] Commons Logging 1.0 Release
On 1/30/02 7:21 AM, Paulo Gaspar [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi Geir,
Knowing both code bases I would say that Avalon is better in 1
On Wednesday, January 30, 2002, at 01:47 PM, Berin Loritsch wrote:
Paulo Gaspar wrote:
snip
My personal dislike on the commons process since mid December
was the opposition to cross pollination just because of personal
issues, AFAIK.
My observation as well. Sad isn't it?
i'm *REALLY*
*** Note to mailing list ***
This mailing list seems to have attracted too many people who feel
compelled to get the last word in every discussion. Aren't satisfied with
mere apologies or detailed explanations, but insist on bringing up the same
issues again and again.
For the moment, try to
Subject: RE: [Logging] [VOTE] Commons
Logging 1.0 Release
08:46
Please respond
On 1/30/02 4:05 PM, Colin Sharples [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Having followed this, er, debate with some amusement, I get the feeling
that if some of the energy directed at this list had instead been directed
towards JSR-47, then this discussion could have been avoided entirely. What
if
- Original Message -
From: Geir Magnusson Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[snip]
Just to throw another log on the fire...
We did too in Velocity-land, and built the following, a while ago :
1) Simple interface through which Velocity would happily log into any
supplied class/object that
1 - 100 of 149 matches
Mail list logo
