I just want to make it crystal clear that my opinion/rant is not an attempt
to brow beat other committers into coding action. I said that I did not
know about other circumstances and that I was not judging anyone, and I
REALLY meant it. So, Ceki, don't feel you have to defend or apologize for
any
Howdy,
>Yoav, I'm not that familiar with bugzilla. Does it allow you to assign
>enhancements to individuals? How do you go about making the
assignments
>and such?
Bugzilla is very easy to use. Even as a first time user I found it
intuitive and forgiving.
You can assign items to individuals, b
>As an aside: one way to encourage submissions and ensure they're not
>dropped is to tell people to enter them as Enhancements in Bugzilla.
>We've been doing that with some of the jakarta-commons projects I'm
>contributing to, and it works well.
I like this idea. The active developers of log4j c
tributing to, and it works well.
Yoav Shapira
Millennium ChemInformatics
>-Original Message-
>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>Sent: Thursday, January 30, 2003 6:16 AM
>To: Log4J Developers List
>Subject: RE: logging.apache.org
>
>
>I figure now m
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, January 30, 2003 2:07 AM
To: Log4J Developers List
Subject: RE: logging.apache.org
Sorry for the tardiness of my reply. I have been pulling some long hours at
work and did not want to send a shoddy repl
Hello,
No question Ceki but that getting the book finished is important, and no
doubt a lot of work.
Thanks,
Richard
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Thank you for sharing your opinion. I recognize that log4j-dev has not
been very responsive of late. The complete log4j manual was finalized
just yesterday. My focus will thus change from documentation to
development. Expect significant improvements in the coming
weeks.
Regards,
At 04:16 30.01.2
I figure now might be a good time to throw in my two cents (in review, it
looks more like 25 cents ;-). I'm one of those developers that's out here
on the mailing list silently reading all the posts etc. I have to agree
with Mark on several of the points he made here.
Within the past couple of
At 23:06 29.01.2003 -0800, you wrote:
> Being a niche product, log4j cannot never attract hordes of
> developers. Tomcat, JBoss can. Log4j cannot. Log4j does not cover an
> area wide enough to keep everyone busy and interested. However, open
> source still works in the case of log4j albeit differe
The idea of log4j writing on java.util.logging occurred to me but not the
other way around that you suggested. It makes a lot of sense.
At 16:08 30.01.2003 +0800, you wrote:
Just for the record; There are hordes of silent admirers of the Log4J
project/product, and the relative silence on log4j-
Just for the record; There are hordes of silent admirers of the Log4J
project/product, and the relative silence on log4j-dev is a good sign, I
think. It has what people require, and few requests for new features can be
imagined.
An interesting "new feature" (perhaps) would be to look at "How c
Sorry for the tardiness of my reply. I have been pulling some long hours at
work and did not want to send a shoddy reply.
> I hear you. Now, bear in mind that log4j is competing against JDK 1.4
> logging which offers similar functionality, at least at the surface.
> We can take pride in having in
The wiki page is located at:
http://nagoya.apache.org/wiki/apachewiki.cgi?Log4JProjectPages/LoggingApache
Org
-Mark
> -Original Message-
> From: Shapira, Yoav [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Monday, January 27, 2003 6:00 AM
> To: Log4J Developers List
&
Howdy,
I wanted to chime in with a few things.
0. I think logging.apache.org is a great idea. I see xml.apache.org as
the template of sorts, and I think that site is great.
1. What about commons-logging? Shouldn't it be included in
logging.apache.org? Or is the *sole* goal of logging.apache.or
> From: Nicko Cadell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> > 2) Is everyone comfortable with assigning copyright to the Apache
> > Software foundation?
>
> log4net as a port of log4j is already licensed under the Apache licence 1.1
> so this should not be an issue. I am assuming that the copyright material we
>
Nicko's response.
Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
From: Nicko Cadell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: 'Ceki Gülcü' <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: RE: logging.apache.org
Date: Mon, 27 Jan 2003 10:47:53 -
X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21)
Ceki,
> Do I have y
Mike Schilli's response, forwarded with permission.
Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 25 Jan 2003 12:07:58 -0500
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ceki Gülcü), [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: logging.apache.org
X-Mailer: Atlas Mailer 2.0
In a message dated 1/24/2003
At 22:28 26.01.2003 -0800, you wrote:
As it stands right now, log4j does not have enough active committers. We
have a number of committers listed, but not very many of them are actively
working to address issues, add features, fix bugs, etc. I don't know the
reasons, and I am not going to jud
I would like to see this happen. I agree that inter-operability between
platforms/languages would be a wonderful feature. It would blow the socks
off of other logging mechanisms. However, I do have a concern.
As it stands right now, log4j does not have enough active committers. We
have a numb
19 matches
Mail list logo
