logging-log4j-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jacob Kjome <h...@visi.com>
Subject Re: slf4j and log4j
Date Mon, 02 May 2005 05:00:57 GMT
Hi Ceki,

At 07:57 PM 5/1/2005 +0200, you wrote:
 >
 >I don't want to be dismissive but these are just a bunch of excuses. Sure,
 >the objections are all reasonable and all, but at the end of the day they
 >boil down to excuses preventing forward movement.
 >

By this definition, there is no such thing as a reasonable objection.  If 
you are going to flippantly define everything as an excuse, how is it 
possible to have a conversation here?  These types of statements really 
throw me for a loop.  You say you "don't want to be dismissive", and then 
go ahead be dismissive.  The fact that we were all taken by surprise by the 
immediate release of Log4j-1.2.10 is clear evidence that the "forward 
movement" we are "preventing" means only what *you* define it to mean.  At 
a very minimum, I hope that, as an ASF member, you will respect the bylaws 
where everyone on the team has a vote on releases.  Am I really reading 
this blatant disregard for others opinions correctly?  I hope not!  Very 
confusing!!!

[cut from your other response]
 >One excuse gone. 99 to go.

Unnecessary!

 >Fortunately, this is open source where we can take our marbles and play
 >elsewhere.
 >

What the heck does this even mean?  Are we still all on the same team or 
what?   This kind of talk is just shocking coming from you!


Jake


 >At 03:16 5/1/2005, Mark Womack wrote:
 >>This is a spinoff of the discussion regarding slf4j and log4j.  I reviewed
 >>Curt's email on the 1.2 branch changes, and I am building on some of his
 >>comments.
 >>
 >>I am not a member of the slf4j team, so I cannot speak to it's goals, etc.
 >>As a log4j committer I have no opposition to it being directly
 >>implemented/supported in the log4j classes, however, I think that doing
 >>that implementation in the log4j 1.2 branch at this point is premature.
 >>
 >>Even though slf4j inherits everything from the former log4j UGLI
 >>interfaces, it seems to me that part of its reason for existence is to
 >>foster some common, neutral area where the members of the Logging Services
 >>team, the JCL team, and others can work out whatever issues they felt they
 >>could not work out within the walls of Apache.  As such, I expect that
 >>there are going to be some number of changes to the base slf4j
 >>framework.  Looking at the slf4j list archives, those discussions have yet
 >>to really kick into gear.  As Curt pointed out, slf4j has only existed as
 >>an entity for a couple of weeks.
 >>
 >>Given that, I don't think that the log4j project should provide an
 >>official implementation of the slf4j interface until:
 >>
 >>1) There is an official release from the slf4j organization.  Basing our
 >>official releases on a single slf4j beta release version is not good.
 >>
 >>2) There is demonstrated consensus from the slf4j organization.  I want
 >>some understanding that their (future) release version attains whatever
 >>goals they have set and that they do not expect it to change significantly
 >>in the future.  If this was an effort within Apache, trying to achieve a
 >>common interface/api, I would have the same requirements (though I think
 >>it would be easier, quite frankly).  I use the word "consensus" because I
 >>expect there to be a group of developers deciding the slf4j fate.
 >>
 >>So, while I don't think we should allow an official release of either
 >>log4j 1.2.X or 1.3 with slf4j changes until the criteria above are met, I
 >>do think that providing some kind of slf4j log4j implementation based on
 >>the current slf4j api would be fine.  It should be a separate release from
 >>either of the log4j releases and it would be appropriately labeled as
 >>"experimental" or whatever we want to call it.  There would be an
 >>understanding that we (log4j) support the slf4j effort and we are working
 >>with slf4j to provide an implementation, but that the work is in
 >>progress.  The work could be done on it's own branch.  We can wrangle
 >>through the details of implementation directly or an efficient facade.  I
 >>still want to understand what slf4j means to the JCL.
 >>
 >>I support the slf4j effort, especially if it solves the issues we have
 >>seen related to JCL.  Rushing an implementation of it, even though based
 >>on the UGLI code that we know and love(d), is not right.  Now it is with a
 >>group that is outside of ours, in what appears to be a exploratory mode,
 >>we have to take some care in that implementing it affects our log4j
 >>api.  Even once we release an official version, whatever form it takes, if
 >>there are changes to the slf4j api, it should be treated as any other
 >>supported log4j feature. I certainly would not want to start doing many
 >>mini-releases of log4j around api tweak changes in slf4j.  That is why I
 >>want some assurance that the slf4j is "baked".
 >>
 >>I say "slf4j organization", but it is just wierd since everyone in that
 >>"organization" is from log4j, and I suppose the JCL team(though I could
 >>not find a list of committers for slf4j).  It is still unclear to me
 >>exactly why folks felt it had to move outside of Apache, but that is a
 >>different discussion, and we are where we are.
 >>
 >>-Mark
 >>
 >>
 >>---------------------------------------------------------------------
 >>To unsubscribe, e-mail: log4j-dev-unsubscribe@logging.apache.org
 >>For additional commands, e-mail: log4j-dev-help@logging.apache.org
 >
 >--
 >Ceki Gülcü
 >
 >   The complete log4j manual: http://www.qos.ch/log4j/
 >
 >
 >
 >---------------------------------------------------------------------
 >To unsubscribe, e-mail: log4j-dev-unsubscribe@logging.apache.org
 >For additional commands, e-mail: log4j-dev-help@logging.apache.org
 >
 >  


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: log4j-dev-unsubscribe@logging.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: log4j-dev-help@logging.apache.org


Mime
View raw message