bval-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Mark Struberg <>
Subject Re: [VOTE] Release Bean Validation 0.3-incubating
Date Wed, 09 Feb 2011 07:15:54 GMT
There have been objections. Mainly that a small lib like bval shouldnt bring its own log layer
along. java.util.logging is not as good as other logging frameworks, but it doesn't force
the user into just another logging framework deathmatch... 

And as tooling for jul gets better from year to year, there is hardly a technical argument
why one should not use it today.


--- On Wed, 2/9/11, Kevan Miller <> wrote:

> From: Kevan Miller <>
> Subject: Re: [VOTE] Release Bean Validation 0.3-incubating
> To:
> Date: Wednesday, February 9, 2011, 2:33 AM
> On Feb 8, 2011, at 11:54 AM, Gerhard Petracek wrote:
> > -0
> > reason: the discussion about using slf4j just stopped
> and we didn't decide
> > it unanimously (and there was also no official
> majority vote).
> Hi Gerhard,
> Were there objections raised regarding slf4j? I recall some
> discussions, but don't recall any major objections. If there
> weren't objections raised, then why would there be reason
> for a vote?
> > in case of an >explicit< discussion about such a
> basic topic (which results
> > in a new dependency) it feels wrong to me to just
> committing it (including
> > some comments in the jira issue).
> I'm not sure I understand you correctly. If you are saying
> that Jira is not the appropriate location for community
> "discussions", then I would agree with you. It's not
> uncommon, however, especially in new communities. Certainly
> a good reminder -- don't treat Jira as a discussion forum.
> --kevan

Expecting? Get great news right away with email Auto-Check. 
Try the Yahoo! Mail Beta. 

View raw message